View Full Version : what will be banned?
St.Michael
11-05-08, 13:29
Besides the obvious of the AWB. I was wondering what "modifications" will be banned. I am only 22 and am not clear on all things that I will not be able to get. Please don't think me stupid, but simply ignorant to what is going to happen to our stuff. Can we get a simple list for those of us who are "newbs" to what we should get now.
As it stands I am stocking
Ammo
mags
AR rifles. (what I can afford)
Robb Jensen
11-05-08, 13:32
Google the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the Crime Bill.
Consider those and probably even more restrictions if more gun control is passed.
Littlelebowski
11-05-08, 13:35
I'm worried about microstamping and ammo taxation.
I think it's safe to say with the Dems bulletproof (I'm sure they'd love that analogy) control over the entire country there will be some sort of ban on a variety of weapons. They have such a majority that they can simply ignore gun owners - they didn't need us to get elected and don't need us to get re-elected.
Hopefully there isn't an outright turn-in (I doubt that would happen any time soon even in this climate) but I think the days of "black rifles" are coming to and end. CCW is next.
This really was the worst possible outcome we could have have been forced to witness. They can do whatever the damn well please and nothing can stop them.
St.Michael
11-05-08, 13:42
I just don't understand in our great Country how this can happen. I mean a turn in? That is sick crazy. Anyway, What is micro stamping?
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-05-08, 13:44
Turn in: 50 cal rifles (not enough people to worry about)
Big Tax on .308 and 5.56 ammo (military rounds, why do you need them and hunters don't shoot much) or maybe a minimum price per round
Detachable Mag Semi Autos- No transfer, can turn in.
I would think they'd try to pass it all at once, but make it seem like they are trying to just getting rid of the really "bad" 50cal guns.
Just guess, but since these are written by people who seem to have a limited understanding of guns, who knows!
I can't think you could do a black rifle turn in, unless there is A) an attempt on BHO with one, B) UBL has some buddies shoot up some schools with them.
rubberneck
11-05-08, 13:47
I think registration is much more likely than a turn them in ban but then again registration always seems to be followed by confiscation.
decodeddiesel
11-05-08, 13:57
They have such a majority that they can simply ignore gun owners - they didn't need us to get elected and don't need us to get re-elected.
While the democratic majority basically means the end of an effective checks and balances system, they DO need the votes from gun owners to win. The sad fact of the matter is that Obama went out of his way to try to paint himself in a pro-gun image to most American people, and they bought it. In the same light, I think one of the fundamental flaws in the McCain/Palin campaign was their lack of emphasis on the gun control issue. Gun control (and in a smaller way Roe v Wade) was definitely the "pink elephant in the room" that no one wanted to spend a lot of time talking about.
Another important thing to remember is that if you look back at the political fall-out of the 1994 AWB you can see that it was simply devastating to the Democratic party. The President and Congress lost significant political clout in Washington and approval ratings fell through the floor. I don't think this is something they are in a hurry to repeat. While I think there is a possibility of another AWB, or at least a call for more strict gun control, I think it's not the front burner issue everyone wants to make it out to be. However, everyone is right in that it is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Democratic socialist agendas.
That being said I just ordered 5 more 5.56 bulgy waffles for my AK. Not a panic buy as I need more mags for the rifle, but it was a demand driven buy as everyone seems to be buying 100s of mags at a time right now...
I think registration is much more likely than a turn them in ban but then again registration always seems to be followed by confiscation.
The NFA's been around for a long time, and I still haven't seen the US Government confiscate in the way you're suggesting.
St. Michael, "micro stamping" is the supposed technology to imprint a unique marker on the casing of a cartridge when it is fired so that each round fired can be traced back to a specific gun that fired it. I say "supposed" technology because it's never been proven to work, even in its most simplistic "firing-pin mark on primer" method. Two different big universities have devoted studies to this, both of them coming back saying "listen, it just doesn't work reliably." Not to mention a few cents worth of sandpaper or swapping out for non-stamping parts would defeat the technology pretty easily.
Google HR 6257. That's the only thing .gov has a good likelihood of passing, and frankly I think it'll meet the same fate as every other attempt to get the AWB back in place since its 2004 sunset.
-B
The NFA's been around for a long time, and I still haven't seen the US Government confiscate in the way you're suggesting.
-B
Agree. Although I've been surprised before, a turn in is not something I foresee for any weapon.
If anyone recalls there was a small court case decided over the summer. I think it was Heller v. DC....................
In any event, the wording of Heller (with respect to commonly possessed classes of weapons) seems to make an outright ban of EBRs (evil black rifles) unlikely to pass judicial muster. I rather think that the ONE is aware of this and is smart enough not to waste valuable political capital on an effort likely to see destruction at SCOTUS. Whether HE is willing to push the issue or not, IMHO either the House or the Senate is likely to be a major stumbling block on this topic because they all remember what happened in the 1994 midterm elections.
More fertile ground exists with ammo restrictions, ammo taxes and saving us from the evil of lead contamination.
I think you can also expect to see serious attempts to register some or all firearms. In addition, EBR related items such as bolts, bolt carriers, barrels, stocks.......... and so forth are likely to become items that will need to be registered as weapons all on their own.
EBRs may make it into NFA status. We all know that is a default way of restricting transfere due to most CLEO's not being willing to sign form 4s.
CCW is a real interesting topic. Many (40+??) state legislatures and Governors have signed off on this and seen it work well. I think the political heat from the states if the ONE tries to remove CCW is more trouble to HIM that it is worth. I think HE is smart enought to know it also.
Could I be totally full of S#it on this?? Well, Yeah!!! But there is my two cents worth.
woofe
If anyone recalls there was a small court case decided over the summer. I think it was Heller v. DC....................
In any event, the wording of Heller (with respect to commonly possessed classes of weapons) seems to make an outright ban of EBRs (evil black rifles) unlikely to pass judicial muster. I rather think that the ONE is aware of this and is smart enough not to waste valuable political capital on an effort likely to see destruction at SCOTUS. Whether HE is willing to push the issue or not, IMHO either the House or the Senate is likely to be a major stumbling block on this topic because they all remember what happened in the 1994 midterm elections.
More fertile ground exists with ammo restrictions, ammo taxes and saving us from the evil of lead contamination.
I think you can also expect to see serious attempts to register some or all firearms. In addition, EBR related items such as bolts, bolt carriers, barrels, stocks.......... and so forth are likely to become items that will need to be registered as weapons all on their own.
EBRs may make it into NFA status. We all know that is a default way of restricting transfere due to most CLEO's not being willing to sign form 4s.
CCW is a real interesting topic. Many (40+??) state legislatures and Governors have signed off on this and seen it work well. I think the political heat from the states if the ONE tries to remove CCW is more trouble to HIM that it is worth. I think HE is smart enought to know it also.
Could I be totally full of S#it on this?? Well, Yeah!!! But there is my two cents worth.
woofe
Don't take offense to this. You just happen to be the one out of many who have said the exact same thing, I'm finally calling out.
People need to stop spreading this crap. Read the case, the language..... It does NOT protect against a ban. Leaning on this is folly and frankly dangerous.
I do agree that ammo is a more fertile battleground.
I believe that confiscation of privately owned weapons is far from ever happening. I doubt most police /nat'l guard.mil units would go house to house to steal peoples private property, errr, I mean confinscate weapons. B-Ho's civilian national defense unit/corp or whatever he calls those thieving scum that he hopes to produce may,BUT, they would encounter first an injunction filed in federal court by an organization like the NRA or GOA, and second quite a bit of fierce resistance to criminal thugs entering their homes to steal private property.
Don't take offense to this. You just happen to be the one out of many who have said the exact same thing, I'm finally calling out.
People need to stop spreading this crap. Read the case, the language..... It does NOT protect against a ban. Leaning on this is folly and frankly dangerous.
I do agree that ammo is a more fertile battleground.
Read the whole thing in detail and several times on other parts. I agree the language is not ironclad, but it does seem to be fairly strong.
woofe
ZDL's advice is solid. The only thing Heller did is declare certain District laws unconstitutional and direct all inferior courts to rule the same when cases where these laws would come up are concerned. That's it. The SCOTUS didn't create any magical anti-legislative barrier for Congress; their ruling did not, and does not, protect against anything. Congress can still draw up a ban, and we would have to rely on the executive and judicial branches to refuse to enforce it while the people vote for legislature who would repeal it. I'm not arguing that Heller wasn't a great thing, but ever since their ruling it's been made into something it's not.
Quit relying on a five men in black robes and start putting the pressure back onto the legislature and executive, where it belongs, to keep federal gun control bills from becoming laws.
-B
I read HR 6257 and 922. Is the list in Appendix A a list of approved firearms or banned?
Just out of curiousity, I was told (No evidence that I can find) that there will be an attempt to ban all firearms that are not directly related to hunting (i.e. bolt action rifles, long barreled shotguns and certain specific handguns). I know this is probably a load of alarmist propaganda, but is anything similar to this even possible?
rubberneck
11-05-08, 14:44
The NFA's been around for a long time, and I still haven't seen the US Government confiscate in the way you're suggesting.
True but we have to take those who are elected at their word. A number of high profile Democrats have openly suggested that if they could get away with confiscating every firearm they would. The SCOTUS has given us cover for now but we are one heart attack away from having a majority going in the other direction. Heller hasn't settled anything for good especially when our President elect has gone on record as saying he wants judges who's interests lie in social justice.
For now I can see them pimping a "common sense" national gun registry with long term goal of confiscation somewhere down the road. Gun control advocates are incrementalists at heart. They know they can't get every thing they want today so they take what they can get in small increments. How many people who went to the polls in 1992 would have predicted the scope of the AWB two years later. The intent was always there they just never made known until it was too late to do anything about it.
I read HR 6257 and 922. Is the list in Appendix A a list of approved firearms or banned?
Just out of curiousity, I was told (No evidence that I can find) that there will be an attempt to ban all firearms that are not directly related to hunting (i.e. bolt action rifles, long barreled shotguns and certain specific handguns). I know this is probably a load of alarmist propaganda, but is anything similar to this even possible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8fAROhy8k0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWajf5RkDJ8&feature=related
and on and on... Why not?
rubberneck
11-05-08, 14:46
Just out of curiousity, I was told (No evidence that I can find) that there will be an attempt to ban all firearms that are not directly related to hunting (i.e. bolt action rifles, long barreled shotguns and certain specific handguns). I know this is probably a load of alarmist propaganda, but is anything similar to this even possible?
Heller makes that an impossibility for now.
Besides Guns, the I feel the following will be banned:
1) God
2) Freedom of speech regarding conservative views.
3) Common Sense
4) Web Boards about guns.
No one knows what a potential AWB 2 will look like, but HR 6257 gives us a glimpse. Having said that the 1994 AWB was devastating to the Dems and they do not want to lose their meal tickets. Remember being a politician is a career now.
Though something may come down the pike the Dems will be focused on a lot more issues for a while other than guns.
You have more faith in the system than I do and I wouldn't be so sure.
Heller makes that an impossibility for now.
No one knows what a potential AWB 2 will look like, but HR 6257 gives us a glimpse. Having said that the 1994 AWB was devastating to the Dems and they do not want to lose their meal tickets. Remember being a politician is a career now.
Though something may come down the pike the Dems will be focused on a lot more issues for a while other than guns.
I simply can't believe how many of you are swept up by this nonsense.... I've exhausted my evidence on many of you and what I'm met with is "hope", theories, and "I think". Non of which is supported by evidence. I refuse to restate the same things I already have but DAMN people... Come on. Give me some SOLID EVIDENCE that makes you think this won't be one of the first issues dealt with!?!?!
rubberneck
11-05-08, 15:00
You have more faith in the system than I do and I wouldn't be so sure.
Do you believe that President Obama and the Congress will ignore the SCOUTS? I know they don't like the decision and will work to find was to weaken or marginalize it, but they would have to be bat shit crazy if they were to come out and say that they won't abide by a legitimate ruling from the Supreme Court. I don't think they are that arrogant, yet.
rubberneck
11-05-08, 15:01
I simply can't believe how many of you are swept up by this nonsense.... I've exhausted my evidence on many of you and what I'm met with is "hope", theories, and "I think". Non of which is supported by evidence. I refuse to restate the same things I already have but DAMN people... Come on. Give me some SOLID EVIDENCE that makes you think this won't be one of the first issues dealt with!?!?!
What makes you think this will be one of the first?
I read HR 6257 and 922. Is the list in Appendix A a list of approved firearms or banned?
It's a list of weapons unaffected by the legislation.
Just out of curiousity, I was told (No evidence that I can find) that there will be an attempt to ban all firearms that are not directly related to hunting (i.e. bolt action rifles, long barreled shotguns and certain specific handguns). I know this is probably a load of alarmist propaganda, but is anything similar to this even possible?
Sounds like another reference to HR 6257 to me.
Heller makes that an impossibility for now.
Wrong, unless you know something about the SCOTUS decision that you'd like to share with the class that would prevent new legislation from Congress.
Ever wonder why nobody has touched anything NFA related for a long, long time?
Whether or not "guns" are one of the first issues "dealt with" by the new administration shouldn't change our views on the subject. Whether it happens in three months or three years, we still need to be aware of what's going on politically, including new bills like HR6257, and play our part in the political process to fight these bills. Get to know your Congresscritters' contact info and use it.
-B
KintlaLake
11-05-08, 15:12
Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Those who followed that guidance are set already.
Pres.-elect Obama and his transition team reportedly have spent a lot of time becoming students of the first hundred days of Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43, going to school on what worked and what didn't. The goal, ostensibly, is to advance an agenda without over-reaching, maintaining popular support.
If we're judging discipline and success, all we have to go by at this point is the recently concluded campaign -- and that was conducted masterfully.
My point (or at least my opinion) is that we're unlikely to see AWB II during the first hundred days, maybe not before the second State of the Union address. I believe it will happen, but it'll be a calculated play, not a rash one.
The wild card is whether or not the new president will be able to temper the enthusiasm of the Democratic Congress.
And no, Heller doesn't protect us -- "reasonable restrictions" and all that.
zippygaloo
11-05-08, 15:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8fAROhy8k0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWajf5RkDJ8&feature=related
and on and on... Why not?
Unbelievable! Obama says...
"I think the Second Amendment means something"...
Is he saying that he does not have the ability to understand this amendment of the constitution? Or that he doesn't understand how it is currently judicated? I'm being serious.
also
"I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody's guns, uh unilaterally, that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge".
Notice he DID NOT SAY "that would be unconstitutional" or "that would be wrong". I believe what he is saying is he would confiscate everybody's guns and then let the courts decide whether it was unconstitutional.
And of course there is the famous Obama quote "Just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constraint the exercise of that right. "One word, Totalitarianism.
rubberneck
11-05-08, 15:24
Wrong, unless you know something about the SCOTUS decision that you'd like to share with the class that would prevent new legislation from Congress.-B
Heller explicitly recognized the right to self defense and the weapons most commonly used for that purpose. Banning whole categories of weapons who's use is consistent with self defense will find itself afoul of the Courts ruling in Heller quickly.
Frankly your holier than thou attitude is getting really annoying.
decodeddiesel
11-05-08, 15:31
Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Those who followed that guidance are set already.
Pres.-elect Obama and his transition team reportedly have spent a lot of time becoming students of the first hundred days of Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43, going to school on what worked and what didn't. The goal, ostensibly, is to advance an agenda without over-reaching, maintaining popular support.
If we're judging discipline and success, all we have to go by at this point is the recently concluded campaign -- and that was conducted masterfully.
My point (or at least my opinion) is that we're unlikely to see AWB II during the first hundred days, maybe not before the second State of the Union address. I believe it will happen, but it'll be a calculated play, not a rash one.
The wild card is whether or not the new president will be able to temper the enthusiasm of the Democratic Congress.
And no, Heller doesn't protect us -- "reasonable restrictions" and all that.
Glad to see you weighing in on this.
All of us firearm owners sportsman hunters will be in for a long hard fight, trust me this new group wants to take away all of our firearm rights. That is their major master plans, along with getting rid of all firearm shows and firearm dealers.:(
thopkins22
11-05-08, 15:37
Heller explicitly recognized the right to self defense and the weapons most commonly used for that purpose. Banning whole categories of weapons who's use is consistent with self defense will find itself afoul of the Courts ruling in Heller quickly.
I like some others here don't see it happening in the first year, maybe not the second. With that said, there is absolutely nothing in Heller that would protect "assault rifles," not in a federally controlled district, and certainly not in a sovereign state. Government has a tendency to assume the absolute least reasonable interpretation of "reasonable restriction" at every chance.
There are quite a few speech laws enacted by congress despite "congress shall write no law..." Was Heller a victory? Yes, in that it precluded that specific type of ban, in that specific situation(a non-state). Help us with other restrictions? Absolutely not.
Why does Obama - and why do other supporters of gun control - make statements about banning guns that are "designed to harm people?"
What else would a gun be designed to do? I understand that some guns are collectors items, some are used only as "sporting" guns, and so forth, but I'm tired of the PC bullshit about not calling the rest of them weapons and not acknowledging the fact that yes, they ARE designed to kill people, and that's fine. Not all use of deadly force is wrong.
Read HR1022 for the ban they WANT to enact. Heller does NOT stop selective type bans, only COMPLETE gun bans. Realistically, from Obama's own words and the published Dem Platform (and I study this) we'll see:
One gun a month
Return of AWB
350% increase in EXCISE TAX on firearms
1000% increase tax on ammo
The wording of HR1022 is clear: It lists just about every know SA rifle (including the Mini-14) and then lays out that the attorney general (Chuck Shumer?) gets to decide what guns have "sporting purposes" and it says. "By definition, guns that were designed for the military have no sporting purpose" While they'll embrace that as meaning Semiautos, it actually could encompass lever actions and bolt actions which were all issue guns at some futures point.
I don't BELIEVE we'll start with any sort of "turn in" law (unless we have another COIlumbine and then I believe that WILL happen) but look at the four things they have SWORN to do -- no outright gun bans, but restrictions that would basically emasculate us (can't shoot those evil guns without bullets)
I live in California and believe me, each year the number of guns we can legally buy decreases. Look for States, emboldened by an Obama win, to enact tougher GC laws of their own. They have all figured out that Heller only kicks in if they try a total ban.
When a 1,000 dollar rifle costs almost double, and ammo is unreachable, they won't have to have banned anything.
They are also NOT thinking about reprisals in the voting booth from gun owners because a lot of Dems think this election shows that they have their "we want money more than freedom" base cultivated.
Look, guys, Democratic leadership isn't as dumb as we give them credit for. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten our asses handed to us last night. They know full well what happened in 1994. If Obama's agenda is as big as he says it is, then they have A LOT bigger fish to fry than imperiling their agenda with a gun ban.
If one does come up, HAMMER your Representative and Senators with phone calls and emails.
Think positive.
Heller explicitly recognized the right to self defense and the weapons most commonly used for that purpose. Banning whole categories of weapons who's use is consistent with self defense will find itself afoul of the Courts ruling in Heller quickly.
Frankly your holier than thou attitude is getting really annoying.
Rubberneck:
You see the issue clearly. While that point of Scalia's text may be taken as dicta, it clearly indicates the feeling the current court is likely to take on a ban involving commonly held weapons. And currently based on a couple to a few million EBRs out there, they are commonly held weapons
To some extent then, does the ONE and his minions feel sufficiently arrogant to challenge the SCOTUS.
To all:
It is now the time to donate to GOA and other "hardcore" gun rights orgs. Calling your congress critters and pitching a big bitch is manditory as well!
woofe
Heller explicitly recognized the right to self defense and the weapons most commonly used for that purpose. Banning whole categories of weapons who's use is consistent with self defense will find itself afoul of the Courts ruling in Heller quickly.
Frankly your holier than thou attitude is getting really annoying.
Then I'll apologize for my attitude, but what I said earlier remains correct. The Supreme Courts ruling only directly effects lower courts and requires their findings be consistent with the higher courts in related cases. It doesn't (and shouldn't) create or change laws, which is why Congress had to go do it since the District wasn't willing to change its laws on its own. Banning a whole category of weapons might run afoul with a ruling that the Supreme Court made, but remember that at one point in American history the Supreme Court found some categories of people to have no or greatly reduced rights based purely on ethnicity and gender. Supreme Court rulings are not final and do not have the last say over legislative processes.
-B
From a con law perspective, we now have a clear pronouncement that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the federal government cannot ban arms in "common use." When you combine that with the Miller case, I think you have a pretty good case that an "assault weapons" ban is unconstitutional.
I'm obviously a "home team umpire" here, but the Heller was not around during the 1994 ban and a lot of pre-Heller challenges to gun laws were dismissed based on the notion that the Second Amendment was not an "individual right." That easy out for judges is now off the table.
R
The wording of HR1022 is clear: It lists just about every know SA rifle (including the Mini-14) and then lays out that the attorney general (Chuck Shumer?) gets to decide what guns have "sporting purposes" and it says. "By definition, guns that were designed for the military have no sporting purpose" While they'll embrace that as meaning Semiautos, it actually could encompass lever actions and bolt actions which were all issue guns at some futures point.
I don't see how that possibly passes muster under the Miller and Heller cases.
And the fact that AR-15 styles rifles are in "common use" among you and your friends doesn't mean that a "reasonable" case couldn't be made that with millions of other types of weapons available, that these weapons aren't the ones covered by Heller.
Washington DC is still not allowing semi-auto pistols -- only revolvers -- in their interpretation of Heller.
of course they'
re being sued -- but the people of DC can't get a 1911. (legallY)
KintlaLake
11-05-08, 15:54
Glad to see you weighing in on this.
Well, gosh, thanks. :o
We're all kinda breathing the same fumes here. It's often best to open a window or two. ;)
And the fact that AR-15 styles rifles are in "common use" among you and your friends doesn't mean that a "reasonable" case couldn't be made that with millions of other types of weapons available, that these weapons aren't the ones covered by Heller.
Washington DC is still not allowing semi-auto pistols -- only revolvers -- in their interpretation of Heller.
of course they'
re being sued -- but the people of DC can't get a 1911. (legallY)
They are allowing semiautos now (though limiting them to 10 rounds). Interestingly enough, it was Congress - currently controlled by Dems - that pressured DC to ease up their restrictions.
I am certainly concerned about a new AWB or other laws being enacted, but I don't think it's a fait accompli at this point.
I don't see how that possibly passes muster under the Miller and Heller cases.
Because it does not ban guns that can be used for self protection -- just our favorite ones. And Heller includes the language that while 2nd A is an individual right, it does not preclude reasonable restrictions -- and those in power, not us, decide what is reasonable.
All i'm saying is stop just saying "Heller will stop that" when Mister Heller is suing DC AGAIN to get his 1911 registered, and so they relented -- a little (no 17 round GLOCKS) -- and you see? That's all splitting hairs, taking our guns model by model -- Within the Dem community they have been having massive lawyer meetings to determine how to skin the cat of Heller and write gun bans that don't violate the letter of the decision.
zippygaloo
11-05-08, 16:00
350% increase in EXCISE TAX on firearms
1000% increase tax on ammo
350% increase in EXCISE TAX on firearms - What is the current "excise tax"?
1000% increase tax on ammo - Does this mean tax on ammo would increase 1000%? Or does it mean ammo prices would increase 1000%?
350% increase in EXCISE TAX on firearms - What is the current "excise tax"?
1000% increase tax on ammo - Does this mean tax on ammo would increase 1000%? Or does it mean ammo prices would increase 1000%?
There is an 11% excise tax all manufacturers must pay the gov't on firearms (it's figured into your price)
That would become a 38% tax -- each company would have to charge almost 40% more for each gun.
Ammunition ALSO has a 11 % take. That would become 110 % tax -- a $20 box of ammo would cost $42
Then I'll apologize for my attitude, but what I said earlier remains correct. The Supreme Courts ruling only directly effects lower courts and requires their findings be consistent with the higher courts in related cases. It doesn't (and shouldn't) create or change laws, which is why Congress had to go do it since the District wasn't willing to change its laws on its own. Banning a whole category of weapons might run afoul with a ruling that the Supreme Court made, but remember that at one point in American history the Supreme Court found some categories of people to have no or greatly reduced rights based purely on ethnicity and gender. Supreme Court rulings are not final and do not have the last say over legislative processes.
-B
BAC:
Not wanting to start a war here. I know how much of a hot button this is. My blood is boiling as well.
Your analysis is essentially correct. My point is that SCOTUS has fired a shot across the bow of the antis and given notice that the 2A is an individual right to have access to commonly available defensive weapons at least in the home. I think that is likely to give a lot of the questionable congress critters cause to stop and think. The direct implicaton of Heller and the 1994 midterm elections may be enough to blunt the ban course of action.
There are other more productive paths for them to take that will have far less possiblity of running afoul of SCOTUS and unsuccessful expenditure of political capital, that being the ammo angle. There may also be a backdoor attack by requiring rediculous amounts of Liabilty Ins, but that is another argument.
Having said that, by all means bitch at your congress critters non stop. Send $$ to the really good RKBA organizations and get involved in the local politics.
woofe
I don't think I accused the Dems of being dumb per se. But, they have not forgotten the lessons of 1994 and 2000. Does that mean a ban won't come at all? No, there may well be something down the road. I think it may even be preceded by some type of shooting a la VA Tech, Columbine, etc...
I still believe that the false Messiah will be more worried about where he will get the money for all the promises he made, reducing our footprint in Iraq and of course dealing with the people in the world who are going to test him.
Iran and Russia come to mind. Russia has announced the positioning of missiles near Poland as a counter to our Missile Defense Shield.
"Change........one magazine at a time."
Given the fact that the Dems don't have a filibuster proof Congress, and assuming that the Repubs have the back bone to fight, it's possible that nothing will be banned, at least for the next two years. If the Obamanation is able to pack the SCOTUS and have a filibuster proof Congress, there's no telling what irreversible damage could be done.
KintlaLake
11-05-08, 16:19
This phrase appears in two contexts in the Heller deicision: "in common use for lawful purposes" and "in common use at the time." Both reference Miller.
I'm gonna take a flyer at something here. During the past year or so, I read something to the effect that the 1911 platform was about to be eclipsed by the AR-15/M4gery platform as America's best-selling firearm.
(No, dammit, I don't recall the source, and I'm open to correction about the exact words. :o)
Considering that both firearms are generally available legally, and if my recollection is essentially correct, what could be more "commonly used" than a 1911 or an AR-15/M4gery?
I'm just sayin'...now someone help me out with the source...;)
My point is that SCOTUS has fired a shot across the bow of the antis and given notice that the 2A is an individual right to have access to commonly available defensive weapons at least in the home. I think that is likely to give a lot of the questionable congress critters cause to stop and think. The direct implicaton of Heller and the 1994 midterm elections may be enough to blunt the ban course of action.
Absolutely correct. The Heller case was a milestone not because it explicitly did a lot, but because it is meaningful and a very public example of which way the tide is flowing concerning gun control in America. By and large, gun control laws have been moving the right direction for the last 15-20 years, and the Heller case not half a decade from the sunset of the '94 crime law, in addition to an almost insane boom in the firearms industry (no pun intended... ;)), demonstrates that this trend is more than just local. Provided we don't relent and keep the pressure up, I don't think anybody, Democrat or not, will be eager to push their luck. Gun ownership rates are still skyrocketing. :)
I'm not sure about the ammo thing. Remember when OSHA tried to change policies to make shipping/storing ammo harder? That shit didn't fly for a week before they were tripping over themselves to retreat. I can see .gov trying, this as well as the excise tax, but not necessarily succeeding.
This phrase appears in two contexts in the Heller deicision: "in common use for lawful purposes" and "in common use at the time." Both reference Miller.
I'm gonna take a flyer at something here. During the past year or so, I read something to the effect that the 1911 platform was about to be eclipsed by the AR-15/M4gery platform as America's best-selling firearm.
Considering that both firearms are generally available legally, and if my recollection is essentially correct, what could be more "commonly used" than a 1911 or an AR-15/M4gery?
Do you mean that you don't expect an AWB to pass because the AR is a common platform or am I reading you wrong?
-B
KintlaLake
11-05-08, 17:12
Do you mean that you don't expect an AWB to pass because the AR is a common platform or am I reading you wrong?
You're reading me wrong. :) I was simply noting what may be an argument against a total ban on those two platforms. Just practicing law without a license. :D
The argument about dems not overreaching and their desire to please is ill placed and as of last night, outdated. They no longer need a portion of the conservatives to become and remain elected.... The pandering is over. We have had an absolute power shift and have become the minority. Think about it....
KintlaLake
11-05-08, 17:27
The pandering is over.
Well, all I have to say about th-- hold on a sec...sorry, I gotta go call Animal Control! I think I just saw a pig fly past my window!
:D
Well, all I have to say about th-- hold on a sec...sorry, I gotta go call Animal Control! I think I just saw a pig fly past my window!
:D
Tell them to swing by my house because after last night there was a score or 2 mocking me.
I hope you inferred the intended meaning from the statement you quoted. ;)
KintlaLake
11-05-08, 17:40
I hope you inferred the intended meaning from the statement you quoted. ;)
But of course.
Don't take offense to this. You just happen to be the one out of many who have said the exact same thing, I'm finally calling out.
People need to stop spreading this crap. Read the case, the language..... It does NOT protect against a ban. Leaning on this is folly and frankly dangerous.
Heller doesn't mean shit.
This is what will happen in order of most likely:
1. Sporting clause applied to "halfway" guns like the FN2000, PS90, SL8, USC, any US made Steyr AUG, Arsenal AKs, Izhmash Saigas, etc. These will be banned under the administration. "Halfway" guns are imported firearms but have enough American parts in them to be considered domestic made. No act of congress is needed.
2. Sporting clause applied to imported pistols with threaded barrels. Similar to the 5 round shotgun ban under GWB. No act of congress is needed.
3. Non DD NFA dealers will no longer be allowed to have courtesy DD transfers. No act of congress is needed.
4. A reauthorizations of the old AWB ban word for word but with no sunset clause. Act of congress is needed.
5. An expanded AWB to cover all semiauto centerfire rifles that take a detectable magazine. Act of congress is needed.
5. Movement of .50 BMG to the NFA or a ban on .50 BMG similar to California. Act of congress needed.
6. Ban the import and sale of military caliber ammunition. Act of congress needed.
You're reading me wrong. :) I was simply noting what may be an argument against a total ban on those two platforms. Just practicing law without a license. :D
Oh. Word. Just remember what was decided in the Miller case about short-barreled shotguns, though, despite the judges knowing they were in widespread military use. That something meets criteria doesn't necessarily mean it'll be defended (though, honestly, I think our current Supreme Court is more favorable to gun owners than the Hughes court was).
-B
AwaySooner
11-05-08, 19:12
Here's 5 republicans wouldn't be on our side. Republicans don't even know filibuster if it hit them in the face.
HR 6257.
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-27]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Given the fact that the Dems don't have a filibuster proof Congress, and assuming that the Repubs have the back bone to fight, it's possible that nothing will be banned, at least for the next two years. If the Obamanation is able to pack the SCOTUS and have a filibuster proof Congress, there's no telling what irreversible damage could be done.
Dudes,
Obama Bin Biden is a one term clown. With all his promises, economic reform and communism, he will have a shit load on his plate to achieve in 4 years. I think he and his regiem have more to worry about than an AWB II. If in fact that is a priority to screw with 2nd Amendment Rights, etc., he is a larger idiot than I had once thought. I'm renewing my NRA membership early.
Shark out.
Remember that Miller said the Feds could only restrict arms that had no legitimate military purpose, due to the Militia clause of the 2nd amendment.
Given that Heller states the 2nd amendment is an individual right, Miller and Heller combine to create a reasonable interpretation that an individual right exists to possess the arms most commonly used for military purposes.
Basically, you can't have an effective militia without having the common military arms in current use. Since the most commonly issued military rifle in current use is the M16/M4 it would have to be protected. Though I think we would still control the select-fire variants leaving only semi-autos available relatively unrestricted.
The beauty of this is that even if you assume the 2nd amendment was intended first and foremost to protect the right of individual citizens to form militias for the common defense, EBR's are still protected.
What Heller really does is plant the flag that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a "collective" right are any other such folly. So from now on, ANY ban (even NFA) can be challenged in court. Heller effectively removes the ability to restrict firearms from Congress and hands it to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS will decide the constitutionality of any further bans because there will be inevitable lawsuits by the NRA.
No one ever really challenged the AWB the first time because the NRA was deathly afraid that a SCOTUS decision would set a precedent. They even avoided Heller for the same reason. Now that Heller has been won, the floodgates are open and MANY cases will be brought forward. I can't wait for the Chicago ban to be challenged...
AwaySooner
11-05-08, 20:01
Well President Obama can just wait to name his own judge when the time comes, it'll be a whole new ballgame.
Here's 5 republicans wouldn't be on our side. Republicans don't even know filibuster if it hit them in the face.
HR 6257.
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-27]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
The flip side is that there are some Dems who might NOT support it. It's hard to read some of the newer ones on this specific issue, but both the Senators from VA who will be there - Jim Webb and Mark Warner - have been very pro-gun in general.
The concern, of course, is that these Dems will be backroomed and told to get in line by the lefty moonbats who run Congress right now, like Pelosi, Feinswine, and Schumer.
Take this for what it's worth..it's free. I lived the Clinton ban, high capacity Glock mags were going for $100 bucks, ANYTHING high capacity was out of sight. It will come again. The obvious focus would be Hi-cap and IMPORTED ammo...just MO.
RogerinTPA
11-05-08, 21:25
It won't be for a while guys (hopefully) so relax. Panic buying and the perception of a new AWB will drive the prices up more than anything else. I just hope a new one won't be "anything that goes boom or makes things go boom".
FWIW- I too remember the AWB under Clinton all too well. It did nothing other than make stuff expensive and hard to get.
Take this for what it's worth..it's free. I lived the Clinton ban, high capacity Glock mags were going for $100 bucks, ANYTHING high capacity was out of sight. It will come again. The obvious focus would be Hi-cap and IMPORTED ammo...just MO.
Besides Guns, the I feel the following will be banned:
1) God
2) Freedom of speech regarding conservative views.
3) Common Sense
4) Web Boards about guns.
1. God's been on the "chopping block" many times and in the end he is still in control. Exercise your faith.
2. Everyone is free to think and speak as the choose. That is a God given right that won't change.
3. You're either born with it or not. It's not an acquired skill.
4. Not as long as domain providers are willing to take people's money.
KintlaLake
11-06-08, 06:10
Here's 5 republicans wouldn't be on our side. Republicans don't even know filibuster if it hit them in the face.
HR 6257.
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-27]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
After Tuesday, Rep. Ferguson is out (didn't run), replaced by another Republican, and Rep. Shays lost to a Democrat.
No filibusters in the House.
How many here make 165,200 dollars a year? Good money if you ask me, but then again I am enlisted in the military so 70k a year good money . That is what a Senator makes a year to start. They don't want to lose that paycheck as they can end up serving for life. Then you gotta firgure lobbying money more like backroom deals...so who has more money, the brady bunch and the likes or the NRA/GOA and the Gun manufactuers who don't have military contracts (colt and fn aren't worried). What it really boils down to in this country is everyone what there piece of the pie..er uh there payoff... Be real....
165K a year is nothing to the kinds of people who "serve" in the Senate. They don't care about that, nearly all of them are millionaires from other sources. The paycheck is the last thing most of them care about.
They'll start by reinstating the '94 ban and when it's realized that it solves nothing they will expand it to more and more types of weapons. If the government would put their efforts into crime prevention (more police) and keeping criminals in prison (more prisons, or simply fill the existing prisons to capacity) that would have much more impact.
It's been said a million times, but I'll say it again... The f'ing crackhead robbing the corner store and shooting the clerk didn't by his gun from a legitimate dealer. How f'ing stupid are the people we send to Washington?!!! The criminals will buy or trade for their guns in alleys or steal them.
Whatever they do will only be the first step towards disarming the citizens completely.
I'm just sayin' is all.
It's been said a million times, but I'll say it again... The f'ing crackhead robbing the corner store and shooting the clerk didn't by his gun from a legitimate dealer. How f'ing stupid are the people we send to Washington?!!! The criminals will buy or trade for their guns in alleys or steal them.
That crackhead also has absolutely no clue whether his gun has too many evil features, how many parts in it are imported versus domestic, whether his 15 round magazine was made before or after a certain date...and he doesn't f'ing care.
While most criminals obtain their guns illegally, all of the guns were legally manufactured in the first place, legally transferred to a distributor, and legally transferred to a dealer.
What happens after that is up to the dealer and subsequent owners. Most dealers are honest and obey the law, but there are some that knowingly sell to straw purchasers. And straw purchasers violate the law and re-sell to criminals. Sure, some guns are stolen and end up on the street, but I would be willing to believe that a LOT of street guns get there through straw purchasers.
And therein lies the problem. The liberals' view is that the only way to stop illegal sales is to eliminate ALL sales. If there are no gun stores, then there will be no straw purchases, and so on.
But there are already so many guns out there that banning them will only disarm the law abiding citizens and leave plenty for the criminals.
So how do we solve this while maintaining our rights?
One way to reduce the number of straw purchases would be to agree to overall limitations on purchases. If I go into a gun shop and buy 20 cheap junky .380's at one time, it is safe to assume I might intend to re-sell them. And let's face it - we know that this happens. I don't think 1 gun a month is the answer, but something between 1 gun and unlimited guns is something we need to seriously consider.
Another way would be to make person-to-person handgun sales illegal. All transfers would have to go through an FFL with a background check, so anyone who sells a gun outside the system would be liable for whomever's hands it ends up in. This can be done without registration, using the BATFE forms that are already retained by FFL's. Since person-to-person sales are perfectly legal in many states, there is plausible deniability that you knew the person you sold to was prohibited from owning a firearm. And you may sell to someone who IS eligible who in turn sells to someone who isn't.
I ALWAYS transfer firearms through an FFL. I have never sold one person-to-person because I don't want to make a mistake and sell to the wrong person. Now, I would sell to a current CCL holder in my state because I know they must have clear record to get the license in the first place. But so far I haven't done that.
Then there's the issue of actually doing something with people that are caught by the background checks. If you lie on the form and get caught, they refuse the sale but I've never seen an actual prosecution. That needs to change.
I clearly remember the 94 AWB.
You guys see all those thumbnails above and on other boards? LaRue, Magpul, Noveske, Vltor, DSA et al? Some didn't exist in any meaningful way during the 10 year period of the last ban, some didn't exist at all.
The hay-day we've enjoyed is literally like nothing ever seen in America. The variety, the quantities, the qualitiy...unsurpassed in Amerian firearms history...no other time comes close. It's been incredible the transformation AR's particularly, have enjoyed due to the innovation and development by some of these great companies.
It is very dangerous to, and again, minimize and underestimate the enemy. I can see how the combination of short memories mixed with the incredible domestic firearms marketplace today and a Heller victory blurs the days ahead and what the future can and very likely will look like. Trust me it doesn't look good and I'm not in any way prone to panicing.
I think a NON-EXPIRING AWB is on the way and in short order (and the below was clipped from another thread here I submitted)....
1) It's is widely published Obama policy that he fully intends on institutng a NON-EXPIRING AWB.
2) Biden himself authored an AWB.
3) HR1022 is already written, just waiting to be pushed through and significantly harsher than the previous AWB ( http://www.gunlawnews.org/110th-House-Bills/hr1022.html )
4) There is absolutely nothing in the way for that from being pushed right on to his desk and rubber stamping it immediately.
5) An early push prior to the 2010 mid-term elections would all but assure its success. Why gamble with an uncertain advantage 2 years from now? They have the advantage now and I fully expect them to capitolize on that while they can. Its a soft and and fairly easy "win".
It's an easy early "victory" that's going to be a feather in Obama's cap that he'll need once it's obvious subjects like healthcare, foreign policy and the economy are significantly more difficult to succeed with. It is dangerous to under-estimate the enemy, and I firmly believe that we're where we are now for that very reason. RKBA rights lost now, will be lost forever. These laws do not get repealed.
It's a day for Patriots to stand and be counted. Hit the phones and hit the computers, send a message to your reps...be ready to act. Let them know their jobs are on the line if they stand against the RKBA. We were out mobilized, out motivated and out financed by the liberals in America. Learn, act and do whatever you can, because this is as serious as it gets IMO.
A couple of problems with your statement. IIRC studies have shown that a large amount of weapons found in criminal hands were the product of burglaries.
Multiple sales are reported to the BATFE on a separate form.
People should not have to go through an FFL to sell their own property. You would sell to a current CCW in your state, yet you have no idea whether or not their permit is valid. In many states if a person is convicted or otherwise becomes disqualified there is no one that ensures they surrender their license. They could also simply lie if someone did show up and say they lost it.
While most criminals obtain their guns illegally, all of the guns were legally manufactured in the first place, legally transferred to a distributor, and legally transferred to a dealer.
What happens after that is up to the dealer and subsequent owners. Most dealers are honest and obey the law, but there are some that knowingly sell to straw purchasers. And straw purchasers violate the law and re-sell to criminals. Sure, some guns are stolen and end up on the street, but I would be willing to believe that a LOT of street guns get there through straw purchasers.
And therein lies the problem. The liberals' view is that the only way to stop illegal sales is to eliminate ALL sales. If there are no gun stores, then there will be no straw purchases, and so on.
But there are already so many guns out there that banning them will only disarm the law abiding citizens and leave plenty for the criminals.
So how do we solve this while maintaining our rights?
One way to reduce the number of straw purchases would be to agree to overall limitations on purchases. If I go into a gun shop and buy 20 cheap junky .380's at one time, it is safe to assume I might intend to re-sell them. And let's face it - we know that this happens. I don't think 1 gun a month is the answer, but something between 1 gun and unlimited guns is something we need to seriously consider.
Another way would be to make person-to-person handgun sales illegal. All transfers would have to go through an FFL with a background check, so anyone who sells a gun outside the system would be liable for whomever's hands it ends up in. This can be done without registration, using the BATFE forms that are already retained by FFL's. Since person-to-person sales are perfectly legal in many states, there is plausible deniability that you knew the person you sold to was prohibited from owning a firearm. And you may sell to someone who IS eligible who in turn sells to someone who isn't.
I ALWAYS transfer firearms through an FFL. I have never sold one person-to-person because I don't want to make a mistake and sell to the wrong person. Now, I would sell to a current CCL holder in my state because I know they must have clear record to get the license in the first place. But so far I haven't done that.
Then there's the issue of actually doing something with people that are caught by the background checks. If you lie on the form and get caught, they refuse the sale but I've never seen an actual prosecution. That needs to change.
I didn't say I would sell to a person with a CCL card that has not been verified. Hell, you could easily fake an Indiana CCL - it's just a card-sized form that's laser printed on pink paper, and you have to cut it out yourself.
I meant someone with a CURRENT CCL. A simple call to the State Police could verify that the license is in good standing. This isn't rocket science.
You are proving my point - there is no way to make sure that person-to-person transfers only go to qualified people. That is a huge hole in many states laws that allows many ineligible people to buy guns easily. At every gun show, there is usually some clown that shows up and asks if a dealer will do a "personal sale". Invariably, it's a young gang-looking thug with baggy pants that is ogling the Uzi's, Tech9 's and AK's. The dealers always refuse, but I'm sure someone at the show will sell them what they want if they ask enough people. That's the gun show loophole. It's a lot smaller than the gun banners want the average person to think. I would estimate that over 90% of all dealers at gun shows are FFL's who perform background checks for every transaction, whereas the banners try to imply that there are no background checks at any gun show.
Sure lots of guns get on the street though burglaries, which is something we can't stop unless we enact laws requiring people to own gun safes of sufficient strength and weight (highly unlikely). But a LOT of them get on the street through straw purchases. And this is a problem we have to take an active role in fixing, or it will be "fixed" for us in a manner that we don't like.
I don't like my rights being violated by the government any more than you do, and I don't believe in gun control either. The USA before 1968 was a safer place than today, so I don't see how gun control has had any positive effect. If you believe in a free society than you have to accept the fact that bad things can and will happen. That said, many Americans, perhaps a majority, believe in some form of gun control, and they will continue to vote for politicians that promise to enact more restrictions. We have to make sure that "common sense" restrictions really are "common sense", and address the actual issues instead of imagined issues.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-06-08, 11:32
Can we get some sympethetic congressmen to start to push the "Civil Rights Act of 2009" that expands and codifies some the Heller points. When the Dems back it down, run all kinds of ads that they were against civil rights. Or if they repeal the Patriot Act, throw it in there.
Not to muddy the issue, but it amazes me that people see constitutional rights to counsel, abortions, gay marriage, but when it comes to things like the the 2nd and Emminent Domain, they try to use the constitution to restrict rights.
Going to be intersting times.
bigthunder223
11-06-08, 12:07
The people have spoken!The Democrats have been given ultimate power by the people and they intend to take this opportunity to complete their agenda.Obama will be a two term President,make no mistake about that.
A new AWB is an absolute!It is a priority for Obama and the Liberal majority.I believe it will occur within two years.The economy and the war are the most important issues.Once they have resolved those issues to their satisfaction,they will look toward another AWB.
The Heller case did not resolve anything. After the ruling,DC declared a "State of Emergency" and are still refusing to acknowledge the Supreme Courts decision.
These people will never stop until we are disarmed.They need us to be financially and personally dependent upon them.If we cannot provide for ourselves or protect ourselves,we will become totally dependent on them.They will risk everything to accomplish this.
This is the era of "Social Change".None of you will like what you see.Prepare for the worse, because "Hope and Faith" alone will not help any of you.
I certainly agree that AWB II is a real possibility. But with Wall Steet in tatters, the housing market still in the gutter, people losing their jobs and houses (to foreclosure), Iraq/Afghanistan, etc, etc., it might not be the hot ticket item at the moment. I'm sure they'll get around to it when things settle down a bit, or maybe by that time some other national crisis will rear it's head and it'll get pushed back even further.
Geez- wars, recessions, political turmoil, fuel crisis, natural disasters. I tell ya, nothings been the same since David Lee Roth left Van Halen :D
HAMMERDROP
11-06-08, 14:18
I tell ya, nothings been the same since David Lee Roth left Van Halen :D[/QUOTE]
LOL ...but I agree with your entire post.
No doubt about that...
I am not taking all this with a grain of salt and think bans or even confiscation are out of the question, end or pending result.
But I think we need to calm down ...
I am not trying to institute any measures or make any threatening statements or proclamations through M4C. I think if a confiscation which ultimately is ALL of our primary concern, would occur there are enough ' peckerwoods with too many guns ' who would just start blasting away.
Who are not M4C or other site members. Or are not people we would necessarily sit down and break bread with or are as educated as we are. We would mostly consider them unsavory types and really do not even know they exist.
This is just my opinion and in no way meant to offend any police or military types ... sure I can see a new AWB voted in and rallied around and instituted but executed ... thats when the REAL problems would start.
I remember in '04 when we were all on TOS everybody was waiting for 'W' to reinstate the 1994 AWB and it didn't happen ... remember all the crazy ' ...cold dead hands' threads that wasted TOS bandwidth ? All the people who sent their IP address into cyberspace with threats of an uprising against the Gov't - remember all that crap? Please let us not wander the same path until something concrete takes place.
BHO has a full plate slopping over the sides and not soon enough his admin will end. Our common questions are will we still have our AR15's ? I think yes for what I hinted at above.
I cant think of an agency or department whose employees yes employees not members or agents (as I know you would to prefer to be referred to yourselves as- sorry) even under orders who would for the monthly stipend the state or fed gov't issues them now would turn themselves into death squads?
How long would it take for that oxy-moronic policy to be reappealed - like 'Prohibithion' ?
This is just my opinion and not intended to suggest any action myself or any other member of M4C might take if the door bell rings late one night or wish any ill towards any employee of law enforcement on any level during the performance of their job.
Just my opinion of the USA and some of its many citizens.
There some hardcore individuals out there whom you would not even know it to look at them that are ready to snap. For instance a few weeks back we featured some dipshit from a youtube link waiving a few handguns around giving us a T&E ... he may not appear to be a peckerwood with too many guns but he is ... based on his demeanor is comply in his attitude?
Michael
The flip side is that there are some Dems who might NOT support it. It's hard to read some of the newer ones on this specific issue, but both the Senators from VA who will be there - Jim Webb and Mark Warner - have been very pro-gun in general.
The concern, of course, is that these Dems will be backroomed and told to get in line by the lefty moonbats who run Congress right now, like Pelosi, Feinswine, and Schumer.
I don't think they can backroom Mark Warner. He's a future Presidential contender. He was very popular in Virginia, and he signed every pro-gun bill that came to his desk.
He HE had just been elected President I would not be losing sleep at night like I am now. He at least has some common sense.
jostha2007
11-06-08, 15:07
do a search on H.R. 6257..
you will have your answer there.. .
I certainly agree that AWB II is a real possibility. But with Wall Steet in tatters, the housing market still in the gutter, people losing their jobs and houses (to foreclosure), Iraq/Afghanistan, etc, etc., it might not be the hot ticket item at the moment. I'm sure they'll get around to it when things settle down a bit, or maybe by that time some other national crisis will rear it's head and it'll get pushed back even further.
Geez- wars, recessions, political turmoil, fuel crisis, natural disasters. I tell ya, nothings been the same since David Lee Roth left Van Halen :D
I agree. Gun bans are coming, but there are other things more important to 99% of the country. Even gun haters don't want to see their retirement go down the drain or lose their homes (but we can hope.) We have SOME time.
I know, that's just mean. But so is trampling on the Constitution.
Look, guys, Democratic leadership isn't as dumb as we give them credit for. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten our asses handed to us last night. They know full well what happened in 1994. If Obama's agenda is as big as he says it is, then they have A LOT bigger fish to fry than imperiling their agenda with a gun ban.
If one does come up, HAMMER your Representative and Senators with phone calls and emails.
Think positive.
Exactly. This fight is far from over, we should assume that we all have to get engaged in this battle and FIGHT for our rights.
One tip I've learned about writing to members of Congress: don't allow your anger about all that's going on to get you carried away into ranting and raving at them like a wildman. This may make you feel better temporarily, but it only gives away your position to them, and they will then KNOW that they can completely write you off as the kind of loon that they could care less about.
It's much better to make your messages calm, clear, strongly worded but respectful, and right to the point. If they are left thinking that you are an intelligent person who could potentially support them on SOME issues, then they are still likely to pay some attention to your message. I've been surprised by the fairly positive response I've received from some Democratic state legislators in my state, when I've written them respectfully but strongly about gun-related issues.
I agree. Gun bans are coming, but there are other things more important to 99% of the country. Even gun haters don't want to see their retirement go down the drain or lose their homes (but we can hope.) We have SOME time.
I know, that's just mean. But so is trampling on the Constitution.
You people talk about this as though its some mega task that can't be introduced and passed through along with a whole bunch of other things going on simultaniusly.
It absolutely can....and likely will. Its an easy 'win' where the rest of the docket is by no means easy. He'll seek that feather in his cap and you're ****ing nuts to further under estimate these people.
If Nov. 4th 2008 wasn't sufficient to wipe away complacancy, nothing will be.
Very, very short memories around here.
Submariner
11-06-08, 19:21
Liberty.
I don't think they can backroom Mark Warner. He's a future Presidential contender. He was very popular in Virginia, and he signed every pro-gun bill that came to his desk.
He HE had just been elected President I would not be losing sleep at night like I am now. He at least has some common sense.
I agree with you that had he been elected President and not the ultra-left Obama, I would not be as worried. I understand Warner's record - I live in VA and have for 8 years.
He is not Jim Webb. Jim Webb carries a gun and has a spine. Mark Warner is a pure politician with his finger in the air and, while popular and pro-gun at the state level, never faced the political reality of having to vote for or against an assault weapons ban in Virginia and as the Governor. He also didn't have a bunch of colleagues higher than him in seniority and status telling him to fall into line or else they wouldn't help him and his state.
He is going to have to play ball with the Schumers and Feinsteins if he wants to do anything in the Senate. The reality is that voting for an AW ban, especially if its part of a bigger bill that he can use to whitewash it even further, is not going to hurt him enough for him to care. Telling the Senate leadership that he won't vote for it could hurt him a lot as a freshman Senator.
Submariner
11-07-08, 03:39
He is not Jim Webb. Jim Webb carries a gun and has a spine. Mark Warner is a pure politician with his finger in the air and, while popular and pro-gun at the state level, never faced the political reality of having to vote for or against an assault weapons ban in Virginia and as the Governor. He also didn't have a bunch of colleagues higher than him in seniority and status telling him to fall into line or else they wouldn't help him and his state.
He is going to have to play ball with the Schumers and Feinsteins if he wants to do anything in the Senate. The reality is that voting for an AW ban, especially if its part of a bigger bill that he can use to whitewash it even further, is not going to hurt him enough for him to care. Telling the Senate leadership that he won't vote for it could hurt him a lot as a freshman Senator.
Just look how Jim Webb, the self-styled Jacksonian Democrat (Andrew, not Jesse), rolled over to bail out the banksters.:(
Andrew Jackson is spinnin' in his grave.
Just look how Jim Webb, the self-styled Jacksonian Democrat (Andrew, not Jesse), rolled over to bail out the banksters.:(
So did just about everyone else. The point is that I can see Webb standing up to the Dem leadership on a new AWB because he actually cares about that issue. Mark Warner only became "pro-gun" recently and out of political expediency and was never really tested. The "pro-gun" bills he signed were minor compared to a AWB.
Submariner
11-07-08, 07:52
So did just about everyone else. The point is that I can see Webb standing up to the Dem leadership on a new AWB because he actually cares about that issue. Mark Warner only became "pro-gun" recently and out of political expediency and was never really tested. The "pro-gun" bills he signed were minor compared to a AWB.
I hope you are right. Other than Ron Paul since the 80's, Webb is the only politician I have ever sent money.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.