What do you predict will happen on the Federal level?
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
- Status
Spats McGee
Administrator
In what time frame?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
As Spats said - this poll has real little validity due to time scale vagueness, a set of questions that have no real alternatives except to be scared.
I really don't see the use of continuing it. But I won't close it. Someone might suggest a realistic approach and discussion of factors that would influence federal gun legislation and/or executive orders.
I really don't see the use of continuing it. But I won't close it. Someone might suggest a realistic approach and discussion of factors that would influence federal gun legislation and/or executive orders.
None of the above. At least as they are written.
It is possible the BATFE will be "encouraged" to exercise its ability to change the rules about sales and reporting by the DOJ or POTUS.
We know that type of action will automatically cause the federal court system to be engaged. We've seen it before with the rifle reporting in the border states.
But I don't see any elected officials at the federal level doing much more than that.
That said, having POTUS publically "encourage" states to enact legislative changes could be a very real possiblity.
Just more reason to make sure you get out and vote.
It is possible the BATFE will be "encouraged" to exercise its ability to change the rules about sales and reporting by the DOJ or POTUS.
We know that type of action will automatically cause the federal court system to be engaged. We've seen it before with the rifle reporting in the border states.
But I don't see any elected officials at the federal level doing much more than that.
That said, having POTUS publically "encourage" states to enact legislative changes could be a very real possiblity.
Just more reason to make sure you get out and vote.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
New member
I'm of two minds on this. Some days I think the future is bleak, but other days I put stock in the failed post-Newtown gun-grabbers agenda, the recalled legislators in Colorado, the Illinois concealed carry law, amongst many others.
carguychris
New member
+1.CowTowner said:
Agreed. I also expect another push to enact UBC's, with another badly written and overbroad Senate bill. It will fail, and its sponsors will secretly expect this ahead of time, because its real and unstated purpose is to be used as a club to beat their opponents with during the next election cycle.CowTowner said:
I'd be surprised if any of that occurred in the near future. Of course, there may be some proposals but I don't see any of the things mentioned passing.
At most, there might be some enhanced background checks with an emphasis on mental health, but I'm not sure anything beyond the current restriction is very practical. Outside of a handful of states and few congressional districts in gun favorable states there isn't alot of support for stronger gun control. That doesn't mean that it will be easy to repeal existing restrictions. Only that it will be difficult to get more restrictions at the federal level.
At most, there might be some enhanced background checks with an emphasis on mental health, but I'm not sure anything beyond the current restriction is very practical. Outside of a handful of states and few congressional districts in gun favorable states there isn't alot of support for stronger gun control. That doesn't mean that it will be easy to repeal existing restrictions. Only that it will be difficult to get more restrictions at the federal level.
I have to agree with Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret - two minds.
My first reaction was, they will raise taxes and fees to absurd levels to discourage what they cannot outlaw. They'll demonize guns like they did tobacco, and people will get brainwashed and go along.
But I'm reminded of my bother's response to me, when I expressed great anxiety in about 1996 in the wake of the 1994 AWB and hysteria.
He said (not an exact quote but as close as I recall), "Look, we both have more guns and better guns than we did twenty yeas ago. We have concealed carry licenses, which was impossible then. Take a deep breath!"
I've watched the gun grabbers since the early 1970s. The pendulum swings. Illinois (my home state, and a good place to be "from") was the last holdout on concealed carry - now at least theoretically possible in all 50 states. It may swing toward more restrictions - but I do not think the American people are wiling to give up the right and means of self defense.
My first reaction was, they will raise taxes and fees to absurd levels to discourage what they cannot outlaw. They'll demonize guns like they did tobacco, and people will get brainwashed and go along.
But I'm reminded of my bother's response to me, when I expressed great anxiety in about 1996 in the wake of the 1994 AWB and hysteria.
He said (not an exact quote but as close as I recall), "Look, we both have more guns and better guns than we did twenty yeas ago. We have concealed carry licenses, which was impossible then. Take a deep breath!"
I've watched the gun grabbers since the early 1970s. The pendulum swings. Illinois (my home state, and a good place to be "from") was the last holdout on concealed carry - now at least theoretically possible in all 50 states. It may swing toward more restrictions - but I do not think the American people are wiling to give up the right and means of self defense.
WardenWolf
Moderator
I predict their primary tactic will be to increase the range of disqualifiers, particularly on the mental health front. I expect they will try to get automatic disqualification upon the diagnosis of any of various conditions, and mandatory reporting from doctors of these diagnoses. Diagnosed with depression? Disqualified for life, with no hope of appeal.
As thallub said, none of the above. All sides will more or less hold their positions. Although some believe the gun grabbers will prevail, and we've seen (IMHO) significant abuse of Executive Orders and circumvention of constitutional rights attempting to round up weapons, DC is a pendulum, and it appears to be moving back toward center after 5 failed years.
The biggest likely change, if any, will be nada.
The biggest likely change, if any, will be nada.
If we take losses, I expect them more from the judiciary doing the 2nd Amendment Two-step or "intermediate" rational-basis and accepting whatever the state argues as a legitimate reason. Also, state-level losses like NY "SAFE" (puke) are likely if we get another media-frenzy.
That said, there are a few in the judicial system who are either supporters or at least willing to apply intermediate or strict scrutiny, even if they don't like it.
Also, quite a few states are friendly to apathetic with legislation.
That said, there are a few in the judicial system who are either supporters or at least willing to apply intermediate or strict scrutiny, even if they don't like it.
Also, quite a few states are friendly to apathetic with legislation.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I think that is on the money.
All ready anti states will proceed with more and stricter legislation.
If the antigun major party has control of White House and legislature - they will attempt new bans, etc. It will depend if their majority is filibuster resistant.
If the so-called progun party gets in - they may not pass new restrictions but will do nothing proactive to expand rights. They may go with new restrictions if some tragedy moves them to pander.
On the SCOTUS level - wily old Bird Scalia did his clucking and laid the two eggs - one seemed to have attached positively in IL. The other hatched out reasonable restrictions across the country and anti states will run with that bird. The SCOTUS will not take new cases that might strengthen rights and those state laws will stand.
This is worth what you paid for it. The real action will be on the state levels.
All ready anti states will proceed with more and stricter legislation.
If the antigun major party has control of White House and legislature - they will attempt new bans, etc. It will depend if their majority is filibuster resistant.
If the so-called progun party gets in - they may not pass new restrictions but will do nothing proactive to expand rights. They may go with new restrictions if some tragedy moves them to pander.
On the SCOTUS level - wily old Bird Scalia did his clucking and laid the two eggs - one seemed to have attached positively in IL. The other hatched out reasonable restrictions across the country and anti states will run with that bird. The SCOTUS will not take new cases that might strengthen rights and those state laws will stand.
This is worth what you paid for it. The real action will be on the state levels.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
McDonald following close on the heels of Heller was predictable; Heller did not pose or answer the question, but whether a newly-recognized individual right applied to the states was too obvious a question to not answer quickly.
We did not receive, nor should be have expected, sweeping and comprehensive rulings from a minimalist Court. However, we already see the lower courts sorting through the implications of Heller and McDonald. Some courts are just putting lipstick on the pig of rational basis and calling it a day, but other courts are doing thoughtful analyses and developing standards.
I believe the Supreme Court will not take another mainstream 2A case for some time, not because the Justices do not want to deal with the issues, but to allow time for circuit splits to become more numerous and for the issues involved to become better defined.
- Status