Now that we have a new president ...

J

jimpeel

New member
and a veto proof congress to back him; what new firearms regulations do you envision coming out of this Triad?

The new president has a record of supporting firearms regulations, stated that the DC law was constitutional, and supports the banning of handguns -- likely an impossibility under the tenets of Heller unless the court is loaded with anti-firearms jurists and the law revisited.

Your thoughts on proposals and what they would mean to the American sport shooting and hunting enthusiast.

Your thoughts on the constitutionality and enforcement of such laws.

My personal belief is they will start where they always start, "assault weapons" and work their way down from there. The same ol' same ol' wording, and the same ol' same ol' fearmongering, about how flash hiders, grenade launchers, and bayonets are somehow important features which need to be banned.

The handgun legislation will likely, once again, limit magazine size and may try to outlaw everything but wheelguns; but that lies in the future. Nibble, nibble.

National reciprocity is now dead. Period.

I'll leave ammunition regulations to the rest of you.
 
Jim, if after Jan. 21, Obama and the Congress even try to do something with guns, amidst all the other things going on.... Well, just how loud do you think the American Public will scream?

It would be political suicide, at this juncture.

As much as the MSM supported Obama's run for the White House, they also love a good bloodbath. They would be all over this in a New York Minute.
 
Many places are still counting votes

And while the projections are probably accurate enough, exactly what the makeup of Congress will be is not quite yet fixed.

Our new President (and remember he dosen't take office until Jan.) has a track record of being far from a friend to the average bitter citizen clinging to their guns and religion, BUT it may just be that he will have bigger things to occupy his administration for a while.

The trick will be to keep too much from getting passed during his "honeymoon" period, and of course, just how long that will last. Because of history has shown us anything, it has shown us that once things reach a certain point, the hugs and kisses stop, and shortly after, the gloves come off. Bush could do no wrong late in 2001, but could do no right a few years later. No matter what Obama does, eventually he will disappoint some and upset others. All Presidents do, it comes with the job. What will matter is the scale of the disaffection, and how it will reflect on his party's ability to enact their agendas.

Expect the usual suspects to push their favored bans and restrictions. Expect even more than the usual amount of propaganda and outright lies from the "mainstream" media. Expect a new dimension in our political arena, or at least new faces on old ones. Only time will tell just how things will work out, but one thing is certain. If you believe in the honesty and accuracy of our electoral system, the people have decided.

I wonder what the people will decide next?
 
Though hostile toward private ownership of guns when the subject comes before him, Obama hasn't done anything to show me he is strongly motivated on this issue. I kind of hope he is stupid enough to allow those in Congress who ARE strongly motivated to grab guns to go for their fondest wishes, because I think it would backfire and then he would throw them under the bus.

My reasons to be of good cheer today:

In 8 years of Bill Clinton, government spending expanded by about $400 billion, from $1.4 trillion per year to $1.8. Fedgov spending FELL as a percentage of GDP from 22% to 18%.

In 8 years of George Bush, government spending expanded by over a trillion dollars, from the $1.8 trillion level to a projected $3 trillion next year. As a percentage of GDP, fedgov spending grew from 18% to 20%.

I'm looking forward to once again having a party of smaller government in Washington, and I expect Republicans may rediscover the virtues of smaller government now that they are in the minority in Congress and have lost the White House. I expect we'll soon hear the word "gridlock" again in mainstream media, and that's music to my ears.

I also expect to once again see Republicans suspicious of executive power in areas like roving wiretaps, locking people up without a trial, and foreign nation building.
 
Not This Term

I think our firearms might be safe in the first term of this new administration. If he gets a second chance in four years, then I would have more concerns. The way the GOP ran this campaign, we are lucky there are term limits for the President.
 
I wouldn't get too worried about it yet. I'm not entirely sure that all the Democrats in congress are particularly wild about more gun control legislation. The Dem lost congress due in part to the '94 AWB and I don't think that many of the so-called "blue dog" democrats from traditionally red or purple states are eager to try it again. Consider this, Bush said that he would have renewed the AWB if it got to his desk (the Republican Majority in '04 just made sure that it didn't). So theoretically, if the Democrats could've gotten a bill to his desk within the last two years he'd have signed it. No AWB that's been proposed in the last two years however has made it out of committee or subcommittee. Honestly, this is just one example of the many things I don't think the Democratic congress will go along with despite Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I think political self-preservation will usually trump party loyalty.
 
I believe we need to be wary of any attempts to use "evnironmental regulations" through the likes of the EPA and others to enact back door bans on ammunition.

For an example look at this lunacy which just was halted:
http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2008/04/01/news/latest/doc47f270fdbcfac535527712.txt

The ban on "lead contaminated venison" was overturned but the simple suggestion of it almost resulted in meat being tossed from food pantries. How many of you hunters out there who have taken a deer a year for possibly decades are dying of lead poisoning?

The military has had to develop "green bullets" to address lead contamination issues at a significant cost.

The bottom line is I think you are going to see enormous taxes put on ammunition and components as a "sin tax" similar to that on alcohol and tobacco products. The sin this time though will be sins against the church of "Environmentalism." Mind you, our new POTUS had recordings played on Monday of him claiming he couldn't stop companies from opening coal fired power plants but he would see to it they went bankrupt for doing so. That's scary and the same tactic can be used against anything that is deemed "Not Green."

I have fears about Green Hysteria being used to justify a host of things under the new leadership but I see a specific threat to ammunition.
 
44 AMP said:
And while the projections are probably accurate enough, exactly what the makeup of Congress will be is not quite yet fixed.
Click to expand...

At this time ...

Senate (51 needed for majority):

Democrats 54
Republicans 41

Houes (218 needed for majority):

Democrats 248
Republicans 187

Our new President (and remember he dosen't take office until Jan.) has a track record of being far from a friend to the average bitter citizen clinging to their guns and religion, BUT it may just be that he will have bigger things to occupy his administration for a while.
Click to expand...

He needs to do nothing. It is the Schumers and Fienstiens who will be doing the legwork. All the president has to do is attend a Rose Garden ceremony to sign whatever they put before him.
 
Lots of political analyses mention that the Democrats did learn from 1994 and 2000 to stay away from radical gun proposals.

Of course, some in their party will put forward a radical plan - as the Republican right put forward some crackpot ideas - but not much came of it.

If Obama is intelligent (which I think), gun issues will be on a back burner. Of course, to the gun world it is the only issue which stands out but stand back, take a depth breathe and don't panic.
 
Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
Lots of political analyses mention that the Democrats did learn from 1994 and 2000 to stay away from radical gun proposals.

Of course, some in their party will put forward a radical plan - as the Republican right put forward some crackpot ideas - but not much came of it.

If Obama is intelligent (which I think), gun issues will be on a back burner. Of course, to the gun world it is the only issue which stands out but stand back, take a depth breathe and don't panic.
Click to expand...

Glenn has it right again, I think.

With two misbegotten wars and a tanking economy on their plates, the new administration and Congress are going to have more pressing things to worry about. And, especially given that there isn't, apparently, going to be a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, they are not going to risk alienating Republicans, some of whose support they will need to deal with other issues, by trying to push through anti-gun legislation.

In fact, I think one could make a case that, given those more pressing issues, and the President-elect's stated wish (sincere I think) to unite people rather than divide them, our gun rights may be safer, for the foreseeable future, than they were in the hands of an administration which has seemed bent on destroying so many of our other constitutional rights: habeas corpus, the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (the FISA act), etc. -- and to be generally hostile to the rule of law. (All those signing statements by Mr. Bush, which essentially said "You can pass laws but I don't have to obey them." :mad:)

My perception has been that it was just a matter of time until, in the name of the "war on terror," the current administration or its Republican successor started to promulgate restrictions on who could own guns, starting with members of "groups supporting terrorism," then moving to left-wing dissident groups, etc. I think few people on the right would have opposed such restrictions, and once the thin end of THAT wedge was in place, who knows?

So, yes, take a deep breath and don't panic.
 
Last edited:
Lots of political analyses mention that the Democrats did learn from 1994 and 2000 to stay away from radical gun proposals.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why they stayed away from the AWB renewal in 2004 during an election year.

Whoops. I forgot, they pushed for the renewal that year.

The Dems didn't "learn" anything but just adapted their tactics. They ran "blue dogs" who will fill seats but have no power or influence over policy(especially when they neuter themselves as effectively as Jim Webb did).

With two misbegotten wars and a tanking economy on their plates, the new administration and Congress are going to have more pressing things to worry about.
Click to expand...

With all that going on, Obama will not be able to push his social agenda all that much. So, he'll need something to throw to his left-wing constituency. Gun control is an effective bone as it is almost as sacred to them as socializing the economy.

That doesn't mean that gun control is guaranteed but it's a major stretch to think the RKBA will be anywhere close to being as safe in 2009 as it is today.
 
That's exactly why they stayed away from the AWB renewal in 2004 during an election year.

Whoops. I forgot, they pushed for the renewal that year.
Click to expand...

You mean the one that George promised to sign if it got to his desk and Alberto, the AG supported. Or Mitt said he supported during his candidacy as GWB said he would sign it. Or the one that Bob Dole blocked Newt from trying to repeal during Clinton's time.

I thought everyone liked the AWB.
 
At most this term I see AWB and magazine restrictions. Maybe the "Gun Show Loophole" but that is all. To do more like try and ban CCW would cause the Dems to over play their hand and a repeat of 1994. I think that is all they will do. If you believe the polls then a lot of Americans have bought into the idea that no law abiding citizen "needs" an AR-15.
 
For what it's worth, here's a little insider info:

The far left are [redacted]-off that Obama is not racing for a huge Gun control package. He has refused to place it on his opening agenda at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. They are trying to figure out how to prevent illegal sales on city streets... Or more like they are trying to figure out a new law that would fight that type of sale.

Obama does not want to [redacted]-off middle America. He has noticed the rise in gun sales and believes the Heller decision will stop or delay any anti-gun bill like the AWB. He even mentioned that they did not want to cause more review from SCOTUS which might further define regulation in a manner they do not want.
----------

There you have it. More or less directly from the horses mouth (yes, I have friends in strange places). The above simply confirms what I had pretty much figured out already. Believe it or not.

Doesn't mean we won't keep our guard up. Just means that for the immediate future, we won't have gun-control flung at us.
 
Last edited:
You mean the one that George promised to sign if it got to his desk and Alberto, the AG supported. Or Mitt said he supported during his candidacy as GWB said he would sign it. Or the one that Bob Dole blocked Newt from trying to repeal during Clinton's time.
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about the one that the White House publicly stated should be stripped from the frivilous lawsuit bill the Dems attached it to.

People always seem to forget that Bush had a chance to sign an AWB in 2004, and flat out refused.
 
Al's post seconds what I have been thinking as well. Obama is smart enough and has sufficient legal training to realize that immediately challenging the bounds of Heller with the existing slate of Justices is going to be a further loser for the anti-Second Amendment crowd and it will hurt him politically as well.

I suspect they will follow a two-part strategy.

1) Nominate judges who will undermine Heller in the lower courts and block the better formed cases from reaching the Supreme Court

2) Replace that 5th pro-Heller Justice on the Supreme Court

Both of those strategies can be done without angering gun owners or costing him and his party politically. When he has sufficient ground there, all he needs to do is wait for the inevitable shooting that catches some media buzz and use it as a platform for more gun control.

However, I generally agree with buzz_knox that the Democrats supposed move away from gun control has nothing to do with a change in intentions; but is more about them realizing the wisdom in cloaking their intentions. Remember that this strategy was masterminded by Chuck Schumer in 2006 and Chucky is not now, nor has he ever been, a friend of gun owners.
 
The 2A is not in Obama's sights right now, but if it walks in front of them I expect him to pull the trigger.

I also do not thing the far left learned a thing from the AWB. I live in NY and you would not believe the legislation put forward annually by our leftist State Assembly. Only the Senate holds it back because our Governor will sign anything on the issue put in front of him.

I see no reason for the fanatics nationally to be any less driven than those in our Assembly. Schumer and others like him would have no problem attaching attacks on the 2A to legislation on the way to Obama for signing and the presence of such items will not stop Obama for one second.

I still see an attack using environmental hysteria as the most likely as it is how Obama intends to attack industry already. Sin taxes on ammunition to offset the "decades of environmental destruction caused by lead ammunition" will be coming. I would be money on it.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the most likely Supreme Court Justices to retire already liberal? I see Stevens is 88 and Ginsburg has health problems. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are there for a while. Isn't it a wash short term?
 
Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are there for a while. Isn't it a wash short term?
Click to expand...

Assuming that these gentlemen live long, happy uneventful lives not marred by car wrecks, heart attacks (which the libs have wished on Thomas) etc, absolutely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top