National Gun Control Laws

F

Fal 4 Me

New member
Hello Everyone,

I've been reading and lurking here for some time and finally decided to make my first post.

After the 1994 elections Republicans controlled Congress. Since the 2000 presidential election Republicans have controlled the presidency and it looks like the Supreme Court will take a conservative turn comming up here. My question is why havn't national gun laws taken a turn in our (gunowners) favor, and will they in the next 3 years of the Bush II presidency? The only beneficial thing, that I can think of, for gunowners since 1994 on a national level has been the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban (A.K.A. the Clinton Ban). Republicans campaign on gun issues to get our votes, yet it seems like they haven't done anything since comming into power that have helped us. Shouldn't it now be possible to get rid of the 1989 ban (A.K.A. the Bush I Ban) or other national gun control laws?

Please note this is a serious question and not intended to be a flame or to step on anyones toes.
 
Are you forgetting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act recently passed and signed by W?

What about forcing the ATF to destroy records of approved NICS gun sales? Under klinton the ATF was keeping records of approved sales, creating a federal gun registry, explicitly violating the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Bill itself.

The Dept of Justice under John Ashcroft released a memorandum opinion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act also states in its congressional findings that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.

For you people that think Republicans are the same as Dims, try imagining any if those things I mentioned would have happened under klinton, gore, or kerry.
 
Welcome to The Firing Line, Fal 4 Me. :)

On a state level, many shall-issue concealed firearm laws have been adopted. This has been going on steadily for the past 20 years regardless of which party had power in Washington.

My opinion is that you'll likely not see any pro-gun law changes that affect most gun owners. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed last year, but doesn't have an immediate effect on you and me. Likewise, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (HR 218) is law, but only benefits LEOs.

The place to concentrate your efforts to see positive change is not at the federal level. Keep up with local and state gun issues if you want to make a difference.

-Dave
 
Sorry. I should have qualified that statement.

Unless you are a multi-millionaire who likes to give money to congressmen, the place to concentrate your efforts to see positive change is not at the federal level.



What's my rationale? Because my Senators and my Representative in Washington don't care one bit what I think because I don't have deep pockets.

On the state level things are different. I left a message for my state rep. a couple of years ago and HE CALLED ME BACK the next day. Politics works better when the politicians stay close to home.
 
Thanks to everyone for the quick responses to me post. Boofus, thank you, that had slipped my mind. TheBluesMan, I understand your point about working in state and local politics, but would it be too much for Congress or SCOTUS to try to more clearly define what constitutes an infringement on the RTKBA? I believe everyone on this board and the majority of gun owners across the country will agree that California has unconstitutionally infringed on the rights of gun owners, and unless thousands of pro RTKBA individuals move into California, a Supreme Court decision is needed to right the wrongs of the California legislature and prevent others from acting similarily in other states.
 
I agree somewhat ... I think that California goes to far when banning semi-auto "assault" weapons ... but the US has also banned assault weapons, so I don't exactly see the Congress/SCOTUS as the bulwark of gun liberties.

I am wary that for the Congress/SCOTUS to define an infringement would be for them to define the RKBA. To a Californian that might sound like a good idea, but as a Virginian, the last thing I want is for the Congress/SCOTUS to define the RKBA in Virginia.
 
What's my rationale? Because my Senators and my Representative in Washington don't care one bit what I think because I don't have deep pockets.
Click to expand...

So in essence, you've resigned yourself to never having any improvements on the Federal level?
 
I'm almost ashamed to admit it, Boris, but yes, to a great extent I don't hold out much hope for a loosening of the reins by Washington. Sure, there will be some victories like FOPA, the AWB sunset, LEOSA and PLCAA, but nothing that amounts to the government relinquishing any power back to the people. They've taken too much and they're *never* going to give it back.

I don't want to seem like a wet blanket, so I'll add that there is a lot to be done and a high likelyhood of success for pro-gun laws at the local and state level. This is where efforts should be concentrated, IMO.

-Dave
 
I may be wrong and I hope I'm not, but, with changes upcoming in SCOTUS, we may see more control going back to the states if the "interstate commerce" nonsense is taken away from the feds passing wide sweeping laws based on the issue having something to do with interstate commerce and those powers returned to the states.

That's where it properly belongs under, say, the 10th amendment.!:rolleyes:

:confused: :) :D
 
So in essence, you've resigned yourself to never having any improvements on the Federal level?
Click to expand...

I believe change in Washington takes longer but it can and does take place.

The best way to influence your federal legislators is to get their attention as a strong voting contingent in their district. By influencing change at a local and state level you will get the attention of your Senators and Congressmen.

Some acts in recent history have also influenced changes in firearms legislation and laws.

Aug 1992 Massacre at Ruby Ridge, Feb. 1993 Branch Davidions, and April 1995 The OK City bombing. The sudden spike in participation in "Militias" during the 1990's another example.

The legislators and the President knew that on any Constitutional/Civil Rights issue, advocacy can be charted on a continuum. There are going to be people who are at both far ends of the continuum, most will be on both sides of the middle. There was a large shift to the right based on proposed legislation and an incremental change strategy being enacted, the President and Congress realized they were nearing the boundary of mass uprising or more frequent acts of "domestic terrorism". This caused change at the Federal level.


There were many significant proposals in the original Brady legislation which was not present in the finished product. I believe BC compromised on the original legislation to stabilize this movement.
 
They've taken too much and they're *never* going to give it back.
Click to expand...

Look, in the present situation, we (we as in 'we pro-gun people') will not get anything back because we have created a situation where it costs nothing to a Republican not to do anything. We have created a situation where gun owners will vote for a Republican - even an anti-gun Republican - because the Democrats are almost always worse. What kind of encouragement this give the Republicans?

But this does not mean this cannot be won.

There are dozens of avenues of change unexplored (direct activism in the form of rallies, protests etc., even peaceful noncompliance a la Ghandi, maybe even (GASP!) voting Libertarian, putting MORE pressure on republicans to act straight, etc. etc. et ad libertatem).

A student of military history will tell you that no battle is ever unwinnable (cue Mannerheim).

A student of political history will tell you that the lesson applies in politics.
 
I'm almost ashamed to admit it, Boris, but yes, to a great extent I don't hold out much hope for a loosening of the reins by Washington
Click to expand...

Oh, and one more quote:

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
 
An unrelated issue that might be significant odly enough is the drinking age. I think having the drinking age tied to highway funding is wrong. Reversing this would make the case for states to assert their rights more. The housing bubble and other economic events are going to mean less money for cities and states while the fed gets all the easy money. The porkers in washington are going to have problems then. Hopefully states would start to stop sensing money to the feds in protest.

/Just throwing out ideas and theories.
 
I think having the drinking age tied to highway funding is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is sort of troubling. In addition to drinking age, seat belt laws, blood alcohol, drug laws, et al, are tied to Federal funding. The only revocation of one of these blackmail schemes I can remember was the 55 mph speed limit.

This is how the Federal Gov. have and could further effect gun laws. A reversal of the Supreme Court decision(s) regarding "The Commerce Clause" could stop this sort of blackmail.

The housing bubble and other economic events are going to mean less money for cities and states while the fed gets all the easy money.
Click to expand...

I cannot see how the "housing bubble" (which I don't think exists on a national scale) will benefit the Fed and not State/Local. The majority of property taxes stay at the local and state level.
 
New Federalism

"In 1995 the Republican Congress repealed the 55-mile-per-hour federal speed limit law. At the time, the highway safety lobby and consumer advocacy groups made apocalyptic predictions about 6,400 increased deaths and a million additional injuries if posted speed limits were raised. Ralph Nader even said that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life."

But almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that "the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997." Moreover, the average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits." -- http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html




"Thus far, however, the Rehnquist Court's "new federalism" track record has not been heartening to progressives. In key federalism cases, the Supreme Court has either struck down, or severely limited, a number of statutes supported by liberal constituencies.

On the chopping block have been civil rights statutes such as the Violence Against Women Act (in United States v. Morrison), the Americans With Disabilities Act (in Garrett v. University of Alabama), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (in Boerne v. Flores). In addition, gun control laws (in United States v. Lopez and Printz v. U.S.), and environmental regulations (in New York v. U.S. and Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Corps of Engineers) have also suffered under federalism's reign." -- http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20041210_brownstein.html
 
State Vs. Federal Gun Laws

American's outlook and opinions concerning firearms and ownership differ greatly,
For instance New York and Texas. Arizona is even more for ownership and carrying than even Texas. If we have to rely on politicians to keep our 2nd Amendment I be far trust the ones in Austin, Texas thousands of times more than those of Ny, Mass. Calif. and so on. It seems preferable to have strong State's rights and a kind, gentle Uncle Sam looking at us than neutered States Rights and a very powerful Federal Government. That is why there are Republicans and Democrats. We have to ability to be citizens or just subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top