How are things different than in 2008/2009?

B

breakingcontact

Moderator
The most previous "panic" that drove up prices was based on fear of the new president and what he could do.

The panic we are in the midst of now is due to the president essentially restating his previous position and some senators reintroducing bills they have been introducing in some form for years.

What is different about our current situation than in 2009? Aren't we in some ways better off due to the US House? I understand the rapidity with which people bought was unprecedented. The gun shops and distributors were wiped out like never before, I get that. I just don't see how any severe legislation is going to be passed or existing laws/rules radically unless the supreme courts makeup changes and upholds capricious executive orders.

(I am in no way minimizing the tragedy that happened, it makes me sick. But so does the disarming of the American people.)
 
Because after the last election it became obvious that the number of people who probably would support gun control (Obama supporters) now outnumber those who believe the right to keep and bear is non-negotiable. Couple that with a tragedy that involves children and you have a situation where even more people can be swayed, due to simple emotion, to the "anti" side. Add to that the fact that these types of people are historically VERY vocal and influential among our Government Representatives and you have a recipe for disaster with respect to gun rights.

This situation will require that every Republican in the House vote against a new Assault Weapon Ban. If even a few are swayed we will be subjected to that rediculous measure again...even worse this time.
 
This situation will require that every Republican in the House vote against a new Assault Weapon Ban.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is 100% true. If we are talking about the extreme new bill that Feinstein is going to introduce, I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that some Democrats will vote against it. That's the good thing about the anti's reaching too far!

And I think your thread could be re-titled, "How are things different than in 2004?" Because that's when the AWB sun-setted. And it seemed like the anti's were confident it would be renewed. Most of the gun people were running around buying stuff like it would last forever. And there I was at the gun shows selling some of my standard capacity mags. Because I believed that the one thing you can count on is... Congress being unable to agree on anything important and "acting on it." I was right.

So if they couldn't even renew the existing AWB... why do so many people seem to think they will be able to pass this huge new intrusion with registration and fingerprinting and guns not even being transferable? (Which would amount to a seizure of property without compensation. There's a little something about that in the Constitution!)

Everybody relax and take a deep breath. Make sure you are current members of the NRA, GOA, and SAF. Send them extra money if you have it. Join your state organizations as well. We need to be vigilant and ready to spring into action but the panic needs to stop. I really think that history shows we have the advantage here.

Gregg
 
Re-hash of the failed extension of the AWB:

1. President Bush promised to sign an extension of the AWB if congress passed the legislation.

2. An extension of the AWB passed the US senate by a vote of 52-47. Ten Republican senators voted to extend the AWB and six Democrats voted against extending the AWB. That vote was part of a larger bill that failed to pass the senate.

3. An extension of the AWB would likely have passed the US house. However, Speaker Hastert refused to bring the bill to the floor for debate.

4. The AWB expired as designed.
 
I am cautiously optomistic. With all the draconian measures the Feinstein bill call for (registration for one) I don't think that it will pass. Plus the politicians well remember what happened in the 96 elections after the AWB passed.
 
I am cautiously optomistic. With all the draconian measures the Feinstein bill call for (registration for one) I don't think that it will pass.
Click to expand...

Any so called "assault weapons ban" voted on in congress would be vastly different from any proposed by Feinstein. An AWB like the last one would likely pass the senate, probably with an expiration date. i doubt that any such ban would pass the US house. Additionally, the speaker of the house has the option of refusing to bring the bill to the floor for debate.

Plus the politicians well remember what happened in the 96 elections after the AWB passed.
Click to expand...

It was the 94 elections. The Democrats lost control of both houses of congress. The Republicans picked up 54 seats in the house and took control of that body for the first time in 40 years.

Sadly, the Republicans who voted for the AWB got a pass.
 
Last edited:
Let's keep Republican v. Democrat politics out of it.

So, what's different? Several factors. The current President is on record as supporting gun control. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that he's now a lame duck, and he's perceived as having nothing to lose. In some ways, this was the same situation that gave LBJ confidence in signing the 1968 GCA.

Second, we have a horrible tragedy and calls for public action. Some politicians have seized on this as an opportunity, hoping that the horror in Connecticut will give their usual legislative escapades more of a chance.

Third, the media is all over gun control in a way I haven't seen in almost 20 years.
 
Supreme Court appointments

No one has mentioned that one big change this term is that Obama will appoint the next 1-2 justices on the Supreme Court. They will be liberals who will eliminate the present balance and put the Court in the position to change the present interpretation of the second amendment. When this happens there is greater likelihood that limitations on semi-auto rifles and high-cap mags will occur through court challenges.
 
Obama will appoint the next 1-2 justices on the Supreme Court. They will be liberals who will eliminate the present balance and put the Court in the position to change the present interpretation of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

We are used to dealing with partisan politicians but Supreme Court judges don't just automatically come in and change things. Actually the SC doesn't like to "change a previous opinion." That would make people think they made their decisions based on something other than the Constitution. So while it is possible that we might lose our majority vote on Heller, that doesn't necessarily mean it will end up overruled.

Anything can happen but that's what history tells us. Once a few decades go by... then maybe.

And you can't say "will appoint" and that will eliminate the present balance. A liberal or two might retire and be replaced. But the conservatives on the Court will hold out as long as they can. Even if they are in the hospital. But we need to end up with a conservative candidate who actually wins the election "someday" or they will all die on the bench!

Gregg
 
The only thing different is the raw emotionalism being channeled by the opposition. I believe it is unsustainable. Whether my belief is true or not I don't know, no one has a working crystal ball.
 
After the wave of emotionalism dies down as other crisies surface, the ban wave will come to naught (but what do I know). Recent Gallop polling after Sandy Hook shows 74% against handgun bans and 50-50 ish on an AWB.

Given the polarization of parties - I doubt we would see progun crossovers to anti from one party (sorry Tom) that usually like guns. Some of the progun in the other party will. But that's not enough for 60 Senate for Feinstein's draconian bill.

I'm guessing we might see a mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows. But that's it.
 
For those of us who remember such things: There was a steady drumbeat for an "assault weapons ban" from about 1988 until the law passed in 1994.
 
I'm guessing we might see a mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows. But that's it.
Click to expand...

If that is what it takes to keep from hearing the words "gun show loop hole" ad nasuem then I would be in favor, so long as it did not come with any other restrictions.
 
I'm guessing we might see a mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows.
Click to expand...
There's a certain irony that a tragedy that has nothing to do with gun shows is being exploited to push a law that regulates gun shows.
 
There's a certain irony that a tragedy that has nothing to do with gun shows is being exploited to push a law that regulates gun shows.
Click to expand...

Nothing being proposed has anything to do with the tragedy. They are just exploiting the opportunity.
 
There is no "gun show loop-hole"...it is a "private sale loop-hole". If they close it you will be forced to transfer every gun you sell through an FFL dealer.

They know very well how to divide and conquer even pro-gun groups. They know that many rifle folks don't really care what they do about pistols and shotguns and many shotgunners could care less if pistols and semi-auto carbines are restricted...etc, etc. They bring up the "sporting purpose" crap because they know many hunters are not involved in shooting sports and are perfectly happy with restrictions on those "evil" military style guns as long as they have their hunting guns.

And proposed gun control legislation seldom has anything to do with the specific event that spawns the effort. The killer has usually broken numerous felonies before they fire their first shot. But our "legal eagles" promote the idea that just one more "reasonable" restriction would have made all the difference. They don't actually believe it, they just know it makes their goal easier to approach when they can say it's for the children.
 
Last edited:
The difference between 2008/2009 and today is this: It's only been four years since the last rush to buy and accelerated demand when the GOP lost. A lot of newer gun owners didn't know much about the 1994 AWB, and got caught with their pants down in 2009 (myself included).

Today it's a combination of both candidates expressing support for renewal of the AWB during the debates, those that remember the high demand and shortages of four years ago, BHO's re-election, Colorado, Sandy Hook, NY firefighters, the constant obvious Media anti-gun Bias, internet rumors, etc.

I remember .380 fmj ammo going for $30.00 a box of 50 in 2009. Most of us didn't forget that, and started the rush just before this last election. I believe some have called this the perfect storm for the high demand of guns, and so far it's been very rough seas for the unprepared.
 
No I can't site a particular source. When I had my FFL (many years ago) there was already a movement among some dealers (can't recall the national FFL dealer's organization name right now) to lobby for a requirement for all transfers to go through a licensed dealer. The reasons are obvious...it helps their bottom line in a business that is very competitive and has relatively low margins. They even lobbied (fairly successfully) to eliminate FFL dealers who operated from a home based business (non-storefront, non-stocking). I was eventually unable to renew my FFL without proof of a "storefront" business.

I don't blame them for wanting to bolster their business and I simply "assume" there are still several (many) who would like it a lot if all gun sales had to be handled through a dealer.

If that reasoning is too slim I will edit and withdraw that comment from my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top