Norway - coming to the USA

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...es-scrap-sell/

The point of this piece is that draconian bans are not so far away. Note that the Mini-14 which had dodged previous USA bans is on the list. It was used in that horror show in Norway and in a Canadian rampage.

Thus, expected a new AWB in the USA to let some guns slide by or be grandfathered is overly optimisitic.

The problem will be if the USA succumbs to a moral panic such that the Congress and President folds. Certainly we see plenty of that in 'progun' party. Second, it is clear that the SCOTUS would go along with such in a moral panic. Third, can the current national organizations offer a coherent and compelling defense of semiauto guns that works outside of the choir?

Make me depressed, I'm afraid.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

The problem will be if the USA succumbs to a moral panic such that the Congress and President folds. Certainly we see plenty of that in 'progun' party.

To some degree, we do largely succumb to moral panic at each of these large news stories. People mistake a popular revulsion and an anti-gun short term reflex for longer term political movement. Immediately after Newtown, draconian new restrictions seemed certain, but with time and on reflection those restrictions made less sense. A republican form of government has benefits.

A mercurial exec is always a potential problem. One solution to weak kneed repubs is prioritize the 2d Am. issue over reservations about non-constitutional issues, and let anger over past unrelated conflicts go.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Third, can the current national organizations offer a coherent and compelling defense of semiauto guns that works outside of the choir?

I recognise the goal of doing something productive in that question, but I don't think it is the right question. Engaging in justification of a specific arm is a defect of Zumboism, and it invites defeat in news cycles measured in sound bites where those soundbites don't support other sorts of arms.

[doofus47]

Correction: Canadians don't have "rampages," they have "not so polite"-pages.

Yeah, I expect that when a thoroughly anti-gun party re-gains control of the Federal gov't, they are going to have a buffet-style list of rifle-non-grata weapons and accessories.

I'm not simply depressed for what that might mean for me nor the average citizen, I'm depressed b/c that sort of blanket ban/seizure will fly straight into the flight path of a certain demographic that thinks that a tyrannical government will first come for the citizens' militia-capable guns.

Then we will literally have removed any room for "compromise" and burned our bridges behind us.

Politicians used to aspire to be "statesmen" that gained memorials to their memory for having guided their country wisely away from the rocks of disaster following the siren song of short term gain. Now our politicians appear to be simply geared towards "the base."


Edit: I hadn't seen Zukiphile pick up this topic while I was typing:

Third, can the current national organizations offer a coherent and compelling defense of semiauto guns that works outside of the choir?

I think that the reasoned defense of the general citizenry being able to maintain semi-auto rifles is identical to the reasoned argument that they shouldn't:
1. Con: They are "spray and pray" weapons for the untrained. In the hands of a loon, they allow the potential for great carnage against unarmed citizenry. Pro: In the hands of a militia citizenry, they enable non-trained citizens to confront a threat with the capability of inflicting capable damage above their (lack of) trained ability.
2. Con: Semi-auto rifles aren't for hunting. Pro: Most citizens don't hunt.
3. Con: Large capacity magazines enable untrained loons to shoot at a large mass of innocent target citizens for extended periods of time w/out reloading. Pro: large capacity magazines enabled a citizen militia to remain in the fight longer against a numerically superior enemy without pausing to reload.

I think that the only way to win this portion of your defense of semi-auto long guns is to make citizens recognize that the threat of existential crises does exist. And we cannot know what the existential crises might be. A robust 2a was designed to enable citizens in the face of physical threat and despotic government. If no one is willing to recognize that these threats exist any longer, then all arguments will fail to find receptive ears.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...es-scrap-sell/

Thus, expected a new AWB in the USA to let some guns slide by or be grandfathered is overly optimisitic.

Trying to ban all semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. without grandfathering in existing ones already owned, would be a hard sell. Even if you managed to push through a law banning all semi-automatic rifles, for example with no grandfathering provisions, that may be broad/heavy handed enough to create large scale non-compliance of the law. Please note, I'm not advocating breaking the law, just speculating on non-compliance.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Third, can the current national organizations offer a coherent and compelling defense of semiauto guns that works outside of the choir?

I think most organizations will have a difficult time effectively getting out any pro-gun message in the U.S. given the government, media, Hollywood and education establishments are generally anti-gun. That aside, if things like the 2nd Amendment and history have little to no effect on the gun control debate, I'm not sure what you could use that would be effective.

[TXAZ]

My guess Glenn, by the time that happens Texas will have seceded and most on this board will be memories.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

Trying to ban all semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. without grandfathering in existing ones already owned, would be a hard sell. Even if you managed to push through a law banning all semi-automatic rifles, for example with no grandfathering provisions, that may be broad/heavy handed enough to create large scale non-compliance of the law.

Emphatic +1. As I've argued in a recent General Discussion thread, I believe that political realities in the United States make a grandfather clause an easy sell for those on BOTH sides of the issue.

...despite my assertion that a stringent ban is probably coming, the gun banners will NOT get everything they want. The USA is not CA. Despite all of their wailing, gnashing of teeth, and tearing of garments, the simple fact is that the antis lack the political capital to impose whatever they want nationwide.

I believe that the most likely outcome will be a ban on transfers with a grandfather clause, which will effectively work as a generational phaseout. Such a system is already in place in Canada with respect to Prohibited firearms; buying and selling is permitted among license holders who already own grandfathered Prohibited firearms, and it has recently had the queer effect of causing prices of these firearms to FALL because the pool of buyers is shrinking by attrition.

I don't believe that the gun control crowd has the stomach to attempt either a turn-in program, which would be expensive and complex to implement, or confiscation, which likely to be found unconstitutional—not to mention the likelihood of literally violent opposition...

From a political standpoint, one central irony of a grandfather clause is that it keeps the issue alive. People with grandfathered items get to campaign to repeal the legislation so they can buy and sell again, while their opponents fight to keep the "vital" ban in force. The editorial-page vitriol continues, the NRA sells memberships, and the campaign donations keep on coming.

Another way to look at it is that us old folks would get to keep the stuff we have until we die, and talk wistfully of the good old days when we could buy EBRs and big 'ol magazines at the neighborhood sporting goods warehouse and sell 'em to whomever we please, while the young folks get screwed over. Sadly, I think that the recent push to prevent people under 21 from buying semi-auto rifles—or even long guns period—is proof that this strategy is politically palatable.

Another interesting angle, using Canada as an example, is a report I read a few years back* claiming that Canadians with Prohibited licences actually own lots of illegal unregistered Prohibited firearms, and unlawfully swap them back and forth sometimes, but that these guns almost never see the light of day because the owners don't want to lose their licences... and the authorities, knowing this, largely ignore this underground trade because it's almost totally self-contained and secret. IOW what happens behind closed doors stays there, with arrests only occurring on the rare occasion that such an owner is stupid or reckless enough to sell outside the proverbial circle. Food for thought.

*Footnote: I lost the link to the story but I'll try to find it again.

[Metal god]

can the current national organizations offer a coherent and compelling defense of semiauto guns that works outside of the choir?

Engaging in justification of a specific arm is a defect of Zumboism, and it invites defeat in news cycles measured in sound bites

Agreed and is why we should never get into the why do you need debate as well .

I wrote a letters to all my reps . Most sent back replies , but Dianne Feinstein sent back a reply that pointed out there are 30,000 gun deaths a year . I felt compelled to reply and remind her of a few facts on that 30k number .

First I pointed out that a large number ( likely half ) of those were suicides . Therefore in the context of the type of gun safety the country is debating right now 30k gun deaths is way off . I then said lets say for this conversation the number is 20k gun deaths a year from a person killing another person/s . Of that 20k 75%+ are killed using a handguns so we've now dropped that 30k number all the way down to 5k in respect to the gun deaths the current gun control laws "may" prevent . Wait , that 5k gun deaths include all long guns ( rifles ) as well as unknown firearms . If we were to further reduce the number of deaths to firearms that are being talked about in these assault weapons bans . The number of total deaths by people using assault weapons is actually around 200 a year .

Ok we've now taken your 30k number and brought it down to only 200 . Some may say 200 is to many and I agree . How ever in the grand scheme of things 200 is nothing as it relates to deaths do to a specific thing or hands of another .

10,947 people were killed in drunk driving related incidents in 2017 in the US . It would seem like those lives don't matter as much as the 200 gun deaths you are trying to save . Why have we not seen you call for a ban on alcohol . It's clearly against the law to drink and drive and yet we still have over 10k deaths a year related to that very thing . There is nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights that says a persons right to drink alcohol shall not be infringed . So the ban on alcohol would be constitutional with out question especially when using public safety as the main reason for the ban .

Lets look at another deaths per year number . Malpractice/medical mistakes related deaths are something like 80,000 a year or much more now .

https://www.propublica.org/article/h...n-us-hospitals

Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says.
That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.

Here is another place if one was really concerned about needless deaths that one could really put a dent in the numbers of people killed at the hands of another . Yet again I don't see any of you gun control , more specifically assault weapons ban advocates shouting from the roof tops how you want to stop these needless deaths .

It is these two examples of needless deaths you ignore at least in so much as how much you push for change to prevent them . That shows me your true intentions are not to save lives but rather restrict and prevent law abiding citizens from exercising there 2nd amendment rights . This has never been about saving lives because if it were you'd be shouting from the roof tops to save them all not just the 200 you "might" save by banning assault weapons .

That's pretty much what I wrote back , not word for word but close . My point is , well clear as far as I can tell . There are so many places law makers can save lives while at the same time not infringing of peoples rights . Until the anti's are honest with what they really want I feel there is no reason to believe anything they claim they are doing these things for . That is why we should never give an inch to anti gun policies .

No , none of that makes for good sound bites but we can't help that . Are arguments are not low resolution . They are reasoned and detailed . No way you can reduce them to a one sentence sound bite . The other side uses low resolution to explain a complex problem then proposes a low resolution answer to fix it . We must continue to fight with reasoned and detailed resolution if we ever want to win this fight .

Anyways that's my take on offering a coherent and compelling defense of semiauto guns that works outside of the choir? Be honest and as detailed as possible while showing how this has never been about saving lives on the other side .

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I might disagree on the 'why' we need a 'wny' argument. Mine would the overall Constitutional right as compared to gun by gun.

While folks say it won't happen - let me give you a what if counterfactual. Lets say when the original AWB was passed the bill writers actually knew something about semiauto firearms and the ban was much more draconian than that one.

Also, states are moving towards draconian bans and I fear moral panic might win the day in many states.

Sorry to be a pessimist. But if you don't plan for the extreme case - that can be trouble.

[thallub]

i don't think a federal AWB is possible near term. Look for some states to pass serious gun control laws.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Also, states are moving towards draconian bans and I fear moral panic might win the day in many states.

It's a reasonable fear. I find that fear somewhat moderated by the post Newtown trajectory of hysteria.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For a second I read it as post Newtownian trajectory and thought I was in physics class again.

FL avoided an AWB ban with their other laws. However, let's look for more as said.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by thallub

i don't think a federal AWB is possible near term. Look for some states to pass serious gun control laws.

If states pass serious gun control laws, then they will likely be anti-gun states to begin with or somehow coerced by the Federal Government. Coerced how? Probably financially and largely done administratively through the Federal bureaucracies. The Feds could say, for example, that if you don't want to have your Medicare/Medicaid cut, you'll have to adopt some gun laws in the name of safety (or whatever) because all those gunshot victims are costing us money. The courts are generally anti-gun and will likely uphold a good amount of this overreach.

[Metal god]

I'd like to correct my numbers above . I thought I'd be nice in giving Dianne Feinstein 20k out of her reported 30k gun deaths . Turns out in 2016 there were just over 11,000 deaths classified as murders or manslaughter do to firearms according to the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Of the 91 mass shootings they looked at . The average age of the shooters was 34 with 16 of the 91 being under the age of 21 . The fact the overwhelming number of this mass shooting were committed by people over 21 makes me believe raising the age to purchase a long guns will do very little to help prevent mass shootings .

These are the facts we must get out there . At this point we as pro gun citizens must use talking points in are daily lives when ever gun control is brought up . As we know the main steam media as well as social media are not talking about these things . We must get this info out there honestly and respectfully as much as possible .

[FITASC]

I'll be the pessimistic realist - we have lost. Withing the next 2-3 Presidential election cycles, you will see gun rights disappear and the ever-invading government intruding into everything in your life. It would not surprise me to see forums like these banned for being labeled as subversive and terrorist breeding grounds, internet sales of anything gun-related restricted or banished, and basically we'll end up like the rest of Europe and the world (which is what the EU in Brussels wants anyway).

The time to start stocking up on things you like/want/need is NOW before panic buying and restrictions set in. November elections are only a few months away. Bloomberg and Soros have too much money and the majority of the press fanning the flames of tyranny and emotionally-based rhetoric.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Also, states are moving towards draconian bans and I fear moral panic might win the day in many states.

Originally Posted by thallub

i don't think a federal AWB is possible near term. Look for some states to pass serious gun control laws.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

It's a reasonable fear. I find that fear somewhat moderated by the post Newtown trajectory of hysteria.

Let's not forget that while the post-Newtown hysteria was at its apex, both New York and Connecticut enacted a batch of extremely draconian gun laws, and they both did the dirty deed in essentially midnight deals by declaring the acts "emergency" legislation, even though there was no emergency, thereby significantly curtailing the normal legislative debate and review process.

Parkland was a month ago, and Florida has already pushed through a bunch of new anti-gun laws.

I'm not counting on any post-event trajectory to save us.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Second, it is clear that the SCOTUS would go along with such in a moral panic.

Yes, now, but not forever. I believe that the denial of certs on, for example, the Maryland assault weapons ban come from the conservative justices who know they cannot count on Kennedy to continue to vote to uphold the 2nd Amendment outside of the home. If he does, in fact, retire this summer, and is replaced with another justice of Gorsuch's stripe, that may change with a vengeance. If President Trump has the opportunity to replace, say, Ginsberg and/or Breyer, the chiseling away of our 2nd Amendment rights will almost certainly come to a screeching halt.

Still, I can foresee us taking some hits, particularly in the realm of "gun violence protection orders" and "universal background checks." Neither of these concepts is unliveable, especially if safeguards are built into the laws. And we should be quite vocal about "compromises," demanding interstate sales of handguns and national reciprocity to balance our "losses."

So color me wary but hopeful.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Prohibited licences actually own lots of illegal unregistered Prohibited firearms, and unlawfully swap them back and forth sometimes, but that these guns almost never see the light of day because the owners don't want to lose their licences... and the authorities, knowing this, largely ignore this underground trade because it's almost totally self-contained and secret. IOW what happens behind closed doors stays there, with arrests only occurring on the rare occasion that such an owner is stupid or reckless enough to sell outside the proverbial circle. Food for thought.

Sure, that makes sense. The existing gun laws are unevenly enforced as it is now. But one thing looking the other way does is silence those people politically. It makes it difficult forthem to organize or lobby in a democratic fashion without drawing attention to the illegal behavior they are engaging in. And in my opinion, that’s a major goal of gun control.

If they could choose between silencing your First Amendment rights or confiscating every semi-auto in America, they’d go for your First Amendment every time. I mean, look at how much of politics is basically just standing on a street corner screaming “SHAME!” at people who disagree with you in an attempt to silence any discussion at all.

I’m sure if they could haul you to prison for a gun violation as soon as you did some actual “speaking truth to power”, they’d consider it a fair trade for ignoring your illegal gun the rest of the time. I mean, the 1994 ban was widely ignored as the number of “pre-ban” guns continued to grow and “pre-ban” magazines were imported from countries with a much looser concept of time. I doubt any agency of the U.S. government has the resources to actually enforce any kind of ban. They’ll just satisfy themselves with picking off the strays on the edge of the herd.

[thallub]

If states pass serious gun control laws, then they will likely be anti-gun states to begin with or somehow coerced by the Federal Government.

Florida is not anti-gun state. Florida recently passed some serious gun control. It can happen in other pro-gun states.

[Crankgrinder]

I do not believe in a losing mentality. Thus far the leftists have by and large failed on almost every front and their most recent small victories in Florida and elsewhere are due to be challenged in the courts yet. so they raised the minimum age to buy something lol we all know that won't work but I also know and I do say that if we cannot effectively illustrate the fact that people cannot depend on police authorities for their safety, or the fact that the potential for existential crises constantly lurks just around the corner, or the fact that gun control is about control, not safety then we risk much. We do not have to justify why we "need" things that are codified in the bill of rights for us to possess if we do choose and we don't have to explain the wording of the 2A when the supreme court's already ruled on it #1 and it's been practiced as such even without that ruling since colonial times.

[riffraff]

It did not go anywhere but they even talked about banning bump stocks in NH (which is strange because NH has no laws prohibiting full auto or anything, they simply follow fed regs and that's it).

At the same time they are thinking maybe it's time to repeal the prohibition on driving with loaded rifles (pistols have been OK but more of a hunting law you could not keep a loaded rifle in the car).. For the most part in NH things have been getting easier.

But as far as the fed goes - I am extremely concerned about what happens in the next election and/or if another wacko unloads a gun into a public place in the near future.

[Crankgrinder]

what happens in the elections, by and large depends on public perception the way I see it. Too many people are looking for the government to guarantee their safety and actually believe that they can. The public at large needs to be reminded sometimes that it just isn't possible and then asked very seriously if it were do we really want that? In Florida and elsewhere people died in large part due to govt. Failure in different levels and these are the people they trust their safety to? Government structure broke down just after Katrina here in the South and criminal gangs ruled new Orleans just after the levies broke. Civil authority was completely dissolved for weeks now just imagine if North Korea makes good on any of their threats. Point is the 2nd is there so that we can be the first foremost stewards of our own security in the event that a large centralized government cannot and it doesn't take as much as people think to make that happen.

[In The Ten Ring]

I recall a Norwegian telling me (bragging actually) about a lack of restrictions there. OOPS.

Get off your butts guys, make those phone calls and write those letters, start blogs, join pro-freedom groups, and organize your own protests.

Posts here largely sing to the choir although a fair number of forum members support gun restrictions themselves.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Posts here largely sing to the choir although a fair number of forum members support gun restrictions themselves.

Gun owners have always been bad about thinking you can escape the crocodile by feeding it feet first.

I think part of the problem is there is a whole generation of gun owners who have no living memory of Handgun Control Inc. and the previous Assault Weapons Ban happened when they were in elementary school. If you didn't live through that massive late 80s-early 90s media drumbeat as a politically active gun owner, and then see the change as you realized that was completely astroturfed when the Internet came about, I can see where this updated propaganda push LOOKS scary.

However, you are completely right that we live in a republic and the people who make the rules are the ones who show up, voice their opinion, and get behind people who support them. RKBA has overcome worse odds than this many times - and although Heller is an enormously weak ruling, it is still a tectonic shift in the previous legal thinking. We are winning, and we can keep winning.

[Tom Servo]

Even if you managed to push through a law banning all semi-automatic rifles, for example with no grandfathering provisions, that may be broad/heavy handed enough to create large scale non-compliance of the law.

In 2013, Feinstein was asked about the concept of grandfathering, and she claimed the sheer number of grandfathered weapons was the reason for the ineffectiveness of the 1994 AWB. Her solution? She proposed requiring any grandfathered guns to be registered under the NFA.

Let's parse that idea. Absolutely NO additional funding or staffing for the NFA branches was mentioned in her bill. That means the current system, which is already backlogged 7-9 months, would see a massive influx of applications. What would wait times be? Two years? Five? I can guarantee it would be impossible to get guns registered in whatever timeframe the law required.

The end result? It's impossible to comply, so I either turn them over to law enforcement (which raises some serious 5th Amendment concerns), or I hope they don't catch me.

You're right that noncompliance would be massive. We've seen that in New York and Connecticut. But here's the thing: they don't have to prosecuted everyone. They just have to bust a few people here and there to make an example. Maybe a "if you see something, say something" campaign like the UK uses.

They won't be able to round them up, but the chilling effect on gun ownership (which is the objective of ALL of this) will be noticeable.

[riffraff]

Haha the last assault weapons ban - Oh I remember that, it was a year or two in when we turned 18.

At the time they had imported so many surplus AK variants ammo & mags, you could walk out of the store with your indestructible knife-equipped scary rifle, 1000 rounds of ammo, and 10 X 38 round mags all for about $350.

Everything was so cheap an attainable back them, even though we were broke kids, it was perfectly affordable to sit there and shoot down a tree.

I remember I bought a "higher quality" SKS of some sort, wasn't surplus and ran me like $250 . Kicking myself for why I got rid of that.

I laugh every time I hear them talking about the success of that ban. The motto at one local store was "everyone should own a few of these". I was not doing anything with guns toward the end of it - did they ever run out of the piles of surplus stuff? Whatever the case it was never so cheap or easy to get a scary rifle as it was in the beginning of that ban - back then was before Brady too.