PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control / AWB - The Future???



zero7one
25 May 2009, 20:47
You would have to had lived underneath a rock for the past year if you haven't heard any news about the way ahead in terms of what may happen with our nations up and coming stance on firearms. There have been numerous incidents in the recent past (mass shootings / Mexican war on drugs / etc) that are not in favor of the 2nd Amendment and there are many who would jump on the chance to take that freedom away from us. There is a lot of talk and speculation on what may/will happen in the terms of Gun Control and another Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).

Where do you see the future of firearm ownership? This poll is to see where you think that we are headed. Give your honest feedback. Poll results are private, but if you wish to add a litte more to the discussion, please do so. Lets keep the discussion as accurate but professional as possible.

alpha.kilo
26 May 2009, 19:15
Here is my take: BHO appears to be a man of his word. So far, he has made a concerted effort to make good on his proposals and promises. He said several times on the campaign trail that he supported a re-enactment of the AWB. I am going to take him at his word. With a soon 60 vote majority in the Senate and a continued majority in the house, I believe that anything BHO puts political capital into is possibile.

Maybe not this year. Possibly not even in this term. But he will try before it is all over.

My .02.

Stickman
26 May 2009, 21:09
B.O. also made comments about not going after anyone's weapons, which I have a hard time believing.

My vote went to a more restrictive AWB. The Democrats have commented that they learned a lot from the first AWB. They had thought with the last one that their restrictions would end the sales of AR15s through their carefully worded documents. This next time they will be more careful, and will push harder at what their actual wants are.

Ryo
26 May 2009, 22:10
I had a hard time choosing between more restrictive AWB and the restrictive new purchase. I'm thinking it might be both..

Any case I'm sure they would want a more restrictive ban, but there's a lot of push back.

alt154shiver
26 May 2009, 22:28
I heard that when the end comes, we were all going to pack out to m24's house and camp it out until the end...

But in all seriousness, if another AWB type ban occurs I do believe that it will be more restrictive.

Audiophiliac
26 May 2009, 23:08
I think it would be a huge mistake for them to pass a less restrictive ban than the previous, so of course if there is a new one, it will hose us even more.

That being said, I think its 50/50 whether a more restrictive one would pass. We will have to wait and see. As long as they do not come after the guns I already own, I am fine. :)

rob_s
27 May 2009, 03:26
there is one bright spot.

BO's election has pushed people that would have never bought an "assault rifle" to do so. In my office alone there are quite a few that ran out and bought a rifle, magazines, and ammo (of course, they're not doing anything about learning to use it, or anything to maintain those skills, but that's another issue altogether). Many of them even voted for BO.

I don't believe hat a new AWB is a popular issue right now among voters. Frankly, I don't think a laid off union autoworker in Detroit gives a damn how many drug-running mexican'ts kill one another, or where they get the guns that they use to do it. Even if he would have cared 5 years ago, morals and high ideals are a luxury, and heb can't afford that luxury right now.

A new AWB is going to be a fight even with the Democrats controlling everything. All but the most ardent of the Brady Bunch are going to be pretty pissed off if the government spends so much time and so many resources on fighting that fight when people are still losing their jobs and their houses.

The only way I see an AWB happening is as a frustration move. After a year of socialist policies that don't do shit to improve the economy, and after crime continues to rise when that laid off auto worker resorts to robbing liquor stores to support his family, the Democrats *may* try to use an AWB to make it look like they're accomplishing at least something, and even then they're only likely to do it if we have something like a Columbine but on a larger scale and involving adults (like a mass shooting at a shopping mall, or more than one, or something of that nature) so that the Democrats can vilify anyone that objects with a "do it for the children" approach.

Finally, I don't think they're stupid enough to do much until eithe the economy improves or gets so bad that the buying panic subsides. Right now, the fear of legislation and the resulting gun-buying panic is all that BO has done to stimulate the economy.

SKULL
27 May 2009, 06:35
there is one bright spot.

BO's election has pushed people that would have never bought an "assault rifle" to do so. In my office alone there are quite a few that ran out and bought a rifle, magazines, and ammo (of course, they're not doing anything about learning to use it, or anything to maintain those skills, but that's another issue altogether). Many of them even voted for BO.

I don't believe hat a new AWB is a popular issue right now among voters. Frankly, I don't think a laid off union autoworker in Detroit gives a damn how many drug-running mexican'ts kill one another, or where they get the guns that they use to do it. Even if he would have cared 5 years ago, morals and high ideals are a luxury, and heb can't afford that luxury right now.

A new AWB is going to be a fight even with the Democrats controlling everything. All but the most ardent of the Brady Bunch are going to be pretty pissed off if the government spends so much time and so many resources on fighting that fight when people are still losing their jobs and their houses.

The only way I see an AWB happening is as a frustration move. After a year of socialist policies that don't do shit to improve the economy, and after crime continues to rise when that laid off auto worker resorts to robbing liquor stores to support his family, the Democrats *may* try to use an AWB to make it look like they're accomplishing at least something, and even then they're only likely to do it if we have something like a Columbine but on a larger scale and involving adults (like a mass shooting at a shopping mall, or more than one, or something of that nature) so that the Democrats can vilify anyone that objects with a "do it for the children" approach.

Finally, I don't think they're stupid enough to do much until eithe the economy improves or gets so bad that the buying panic subsides. Right now, the fear of legislation and the resulting gun-buying panic is all that BO has done to stimulate the economy.

WORD!!

But the gun grabbers will still try it no matter what.

From Dianne Feintein: she will chose the time when to pick a fight.[crazy]

xjkrenzer
27 May 2009, 06:37
-Incrementalism-

in⋅cre⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
  /ˌɪnkrəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm, ˌɪŋ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-kruh-men-tl-iz-uhm, ing-] Show IPA
–noun
a policy of making changes, esp. social changes, by degrees; gradualism.


I am Currently deployed to Iraq, So what i read about online is about all the information i get Beyond my father reporting from gun shows.

The entire Gun Control Strategy is Incrementalism. The Government takes a small piece of the pie every couple of years, and the general public doesn't notice or becomes okay with the idea. For the unfarmiliar here is a history:

1934- The National Firearms Act passes in response to gangster culture during Prohibition. The law implements a tax on the making and transfer of automatic-fire guns, shotguns and rifles.

1938-Federal Firearms Act Congress aimed this law at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. Anyone involved in the selling of firearms was required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce ($1 annual fee). They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.


1939- Supreme Court upholds a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns, implying that the Founding Fathers adopted the amendment to ensure the then-new federal government could not disarm state militias.
1968- Congress passes the Gun Control Act. The law calls for better control of interstate traffic of firearms. Lee Harvey Oswald used a mail-order gun to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.

1972- Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created Enforcement of the Gun Control Act was given to the Dept. of the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The organization replaced "tax" with "firearms," nearly doubled in size, and became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

1976- D.C. City Council bars residents from owning handguns.

1986- The Firearm Owner's Protection Act is approved by Congress. The law prohibits felons from owning or possessing guns or ammunition. The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act is also passed. It prohibits the manufacturing, importing and selling of ammunition that can penetrate a bulletproof vest.

1990- Crime Control Act Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts.

1993: Congress passes the The Brady Handgun Violence Act, establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System gun dealers are to use before selling a gun. The law is named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

1994- The Most Applicable to this post, the one, the only Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act -Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use. Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms. Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws.


The thing that saved us from a continuation of this ban were the statistics. Not a lot of people are robbing 7-11's and liquor stores with AR-15s and AK-47s. So, a great argument was, this ban, Had imposed more of a infringement on 2nd amendment rights than it had imposed safety among the general public. The Violent Crimes Stats spoke for themselves.

The Typical Brady Bunch family doesn't mind if you take away Hi-Cap Magazines or Assault weapons. The government tells them Bobby and Marsha will be (fill in the blank) Percent more safe with them gone.

Its when the government takes TOO much away, that people begin to take notice at the Rights, NOT privileges that we are entitled to slowly dwindling away.

Personally, I see the proposed "Gun Owner Licensing Act" being the first to go through. This will most likely be followed with a similar AWB with different, "more up to date" restrictions, not necessarily more or less restrictive.

I apologize if i sort of went on a rant there... Gun Control gets me fired up i suppose.

thanks for reading - Zak

Titleist
27 May 2009, 07:30
The naive part of me is hoping things ease down and at least stay the same as they are now.

I'm really more of a centrist, but it bothers me to no end to see the domination of 3 branches by one party or another. I always believed that with a two party system that doesn't agree, can sometimes force both sides to come to a mutually beneficial decision. That's not the case now.

Though one thing to point out is that not all democrats are anti-gun. But sadly enough are, and I'm very much concerned that if a new AWB bill is passed it'll either be more draconian.

To something Rob pointed out, i.e knee jerk buying without post-sales training. This is something that bothers me quite a bit. I still don't understand why you can buy a car (which kill more people a year than firearms) and are required to train to use it, but not on firearms.

Army Chief
27 May 2009, 08:18
Wel stated, Zak; the history of gun control legislation in the United States has rarely involved a frontal assault, and historically, this gradualism has caught many shooters and gun owners almost completely unaware.

A great example of this is the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. This legislation was billed as a pro-2A bill in most respects, but it also included last-minute additions which resulted in a permanent ban on an entire class of firearms (machineguns). Most people hardly noticed, since they weren't Class III owners to begin with, but the point was that with a stroke of a pen, a significant set of ownership provisions was stripped away forever.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this approach insidious, but clearly, our ideological adversaries know what works. We've already seen one AWB, and will surely see another in our lifetimes. The question is, will we have a voice in shaping it and helping to give it a practical focus, or will we simply be subjected to the provisions of yet another legislative surprise? That may not be an open call for activism, but a prudent man would definitely keep his eyes open and a coherent argument in defense of his positions at the ready.

AC

CAPT KIRK
27 May 2009, 10:06
NOT EXACTLLY SURE MYSELF, BUT WAS MILDLY ENGOURAGED WHEN THE MOST LIBERAL COURT IN THE COUNTRY CAME DOWN WITH THIS DECISION IN THE (Nordyke vs King County Case).

2A Incorporated (9th Circuit)
Slip opinion just out today: 04/20/2009
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of com-
mentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred
years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature
of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium
of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fun-
damental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American concep-
tion of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are
therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments

Judge Gould's concurrence is even better
GOULD, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion but write to elabo-
rate my view of the policies underlying the selective incorpo-
ration decision. First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly
explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are
“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and
“necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.”
The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be
overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone
can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the ter-
rorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country
covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then
assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed
populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes
it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in
an attack on any community before more professional forces
arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against
the possibility that even our own government could degener-
ate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this pos-
sibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.
Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protec-
tion against both external threat and internal tyranny, the rec-
ognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment,
and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the
states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of
weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of
the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could
sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right
to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home
for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will
justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the
problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of par-
ticular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is rea-
sonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and
offensive to the Second Amendment


Figure ifi the most liberal court in the nation is going to make a statment like this there might be some hope.