Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Proactive yes. The Clinton ARB is one reason the one the reasons the Obama administration is running into resistance now.
 
I wonder how much of this may actually be part of a strategy. It quickly became apparent that legislation could not be moved at the federal level before public support waned, but the states were a different story. There was suddenly an excuse to rush forward with new laws in confirmed anti-gun states and to make inroads in other, more gun-friendly states.

The national effort may be a diversion while our flanks are attacked in the states. More gun control IS being imposed, not nationally but on a large part of the population. Harsher restrictions in CA, NY, MA, MD, CO, and CT will cover 79 million people or 25% of the country's population.

One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard.
 
One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard.
Click to expand...

Socially unacceptable is the key phrase here. I live in a legally open carry state. Why doesn't anybody really open carry? It's socially unacceptable, not because it's illegal.
 
One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard.
Click to expand...

I think you are very much correct.

Look at how much guns have been going mainstream over the last 4-5 years. Guns were removed from many Walmarts and then were brought back, this time with AR-15s. Gun shops have gone from the land o' stereotypes to places willingly visited by first time buyers. You no longer need to feel like a leper if you're into guns, in fact, you likely have found people who will happily discuss guns with you at work, church, or anywhere else. Moreover, the people buying guns are not just hunters and that crazy dude down the street, but they're people like soccer moms and grandmothers.

If they are to have any hope at all of getting new bans passed they HAVE to roll back this mainstreaming of firearms ownership. If they can shove us back in the closet they're halfway there.
 
It quickly became apparent that legislation could not be moved at the federal level before public support waned, but the states were a different story.
Click to expand...
You're right. It appears that they're shifting the battleground to the states.

Of course, McDonald incorporated the Heller provisions against the states, so these laws are ripe fodder for a lawsuit. While it's little consolation to the residents of affected states in the immediate future, at least the damage will be relatively confined while we proceed with litigation.
 
I think that is the strategy...states like CA do laws that clearly are outside and wait for a lawsuit, do a slow roll through the state judiciary system before it gets to the federal circuit, and in the meantime hope we all run out of money and time going from state to state, while they confiscate firearms and "lose" them, as Nagin did.

I might have this wrong, but it seems like the strategy is to take as much possible and make us bleed all the more to fight back state by state. Confiscate as much as they can and claim ineptitude or forgiveness when it turns out the arms have been destroyed one way or another.

Cynical. What a brave new world.
 
If they are to have any hope at all of getting new bans passed they HAVE to roll back this mainstreaming of firearms ownership. If they can shove us back in the closet they're halfway there.
Click to expand...

One more thing gun owners have going for them is there are more gun owners, due to the rise of concealed carry. There are more people these days who own a firearm for the express purpose of self defense, not just hunting/shooting sports.
 
Lets not forget that the gun community and shooting as a sport has risen in popularity due in part to the media. Shows like Top Shot and Sons of Guns certainly have been helping with piquing the interest of people more, not to mention video games as much as I'd hate to admit. For better or worse, recreational shooting has become more recognized as a sport and not just something you do for hunting or self defense.
 
How to make their plans backfire

This may be premature but I have to wonder, if they pass universal background checks that cover all forms of mental issues, even common ones (and this I oppose), shouldn't we ask for something in return? For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.

I know a lot of you will say that this is excessive and unfeasible, but I know for a fact that a select-fire rifle will not do any more harm than a semi-automatic in the hands of a proven responsible gun owner. I think this is fair. They get theirs, we get ours.

I am tired of having the anti-gun folks keep taking from us. They always reach for the low-hanging fruit and the next day they do it all over again. :mad:
 
For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.
Click to expand...

Good idea in principal, but I'd suggest starting with low hanging fruit as well.
They get checks, we get the Hughes Amendment repealed.
 
Yup

Here in Connecticut WE are toast... The Legislature will soon roll out
the 'new' laws...done deal... the antis here will mop the floor..
2A is going bye bye here, and our Washington crowd is leading the parade...
Blumenthal didn't even reply to any correspondence.. Murphy did, with the the typical anti bs (40%, blah blah)
The locals from Hartford din't do much better...just a few responces thanking me for my letter
( {Read} We've already done the deals, so we don't want your input)

NONE have ever publicly supported 2A... So when the laws pass, and the rush is over, they can say '" we tried " to help,

I can't wait until the NEXT election

*** I hope I am Wrong ***
 
NONE have ever publicly supported 2A... So when the laws pass, and the rush is over, they can say '" we tried " to help,
Click to expand...

It is of record, and will be of record as to how your politicians voted. It surely will get brought up when there election time comes. Here in Michigan, the only thing we have going for us is a republican governor. Detroit and smaller cities with the same kind of demographics will eventually prevail. The writing's on the wall.
 
For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.
Click to expand...
First off, they would never agree to that. Second, we'd see the allowance for NFA items repealed down the road, while universal background checks remained in force. It's a losing proposition and such a deal only offers an illusion of safety.
 
The federal push means nothing to me because I live in Massachusetts, and it's already stricter than the fed proposals, and they're trying to pass even more insane stuff.

Forced liability insurance when no insurers will insure you, meaning you surrender your guns - law? Check.

Forced storage of "large capacity" weapons at ranges with no storage capacity? - Check

Restricting buying to 1 firearm per month? - Check!

On and on.
 
I know a lot of you will say that this is excessive and unfeasible, but I know for a fact that a select-fire rifle will not do any more harm than a semi-automatic in the hands of a proven responsible gun owner. I think this is fair. They get theirs, we get ours.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is, they think being able to hang onto 22LR bolt actions and 22 pistols just a little bit longer IS getting ours.

And we'd be better off demanding things like a National Carry Permit.

Second, the background check cannot cover "all forms" of mental illness. You still have to touch base with due process in some way or another- Adjudicated mentally deficient. A judge or panel has to say your mental illness is so bad you can't take care of yourself... either through a civil hearing, or a NG by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect non-conviction conviction. There was story in my local paper about a woman who was arrested with a gun, and had been in all sorts of trouble. She should never have had a gun. No one disputes this.

But the anti writing the story didn't make the connection that this woman hadn't had the due process take her right away. The background check didn't fail, and she didn't avoid it, the system failed to follow through enough to flag her. Charges were dropped when she plead Not Guilty by.. yadda yadda. So her plea didn't count. She'd been arrested for other things other times, but again charges were dropped... she had no criminal record and had never actually been adjudicated mentally deficient.
 
If you had mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows and all state limits, like those in CA, NY, MA, etc., were voided - would that be a good deal?

Carry would be shall issue in all states (with a Fed. background NICS check). All currently under threat guns would be free of banning.

I might go for that - and I do understand that it is a shuffle on the slippery slope brink - back and forth on the edge.

Of course, no permanent registration from NICS.
 
The longer we talk, the more people on our side are willing to discuss bartering more restrictions for some other relief. There has been absolutely no indication by the antis of any sort of willingness to negotiate a trade or exchange. While the antis have conceded they will not get everything they want, we have begun mentally preparing to accept more restrictions.
 
If you had mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows and all state limits, like those in CA, NY, MA, etc., were voided - would that be a good deal?

Carry would be shall issue in all states (with a Fed. background NICS check). All currently under threat guns would be free of banning.

I might go for that - and I do understand that it is a shuffle on the slippery slope brink - back and forth on the edge.

Of course, no permanent registration from NICS.
Click to expand...
I'm also grooving with most of that. National Carry permit... no bans, NICS check for all sales. A little more definition of when a loan becomes a gift/sale. Some leeway for family, and maybe friends close enough to be family....
 
If you had mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows and all state limits, like those in CA, NY, MA, etc., were voided - would that be a good deal?

Carry would be shall issue in all states (with a Fed. background NICS check). All currently under threat guns would be free of banning.
Click to expand...
I'm also grooving with most of that. National Carry permit... no bans, NICS check for all sales. A little more definition of when a loan becomes a gift/sale. Some leeway for family, and maybe friends close enough to be family....
Click to expand...

Hypothetically if this were to happen, do we have to point out the current Brady exemption for certain permits/licenses? I'd be less than pleased to have to start paying background check fees and waiting around for those in times like these. :D
 
If you had mandatory NICS for private sales at gun shows and all state limits, like those in CA, NY, MA, etc., were voided - would that be a good deal?
Click to expand...
I think the point is being missed. They won't give us the latter. They won't give us anything. They're not interested in compromise, whatever the rhetoric. 1934, 1968, 1989, 1994...those were all about taking things from us without recompense.

Even if we could hammer out some sort of compromise agreement today, we'd only be postponing more "compromise" down the road. History shows that the anti-gun lobby can't be counted on to act honestly or honorably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top