What will realistically be banned next?

I find this thread really disappointing and agree with Oatka, that it smacks of defeatism.

So much has already been taken from us and we (as a whole gun-owning group) still can't seem to get in the fight. :(

So we go buy our guns and then sit in the corner gripping them and whimpering...

Disclaimer: This rant is not directed at any one individual. However, if the shoe fits, wear it...

What really pisses me off is I could call myself one of them as most of the time I just feel so damned helpless...
------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited November 30, 1999).]
 
Point well taken by this member, John from AZ.

That being said, I believe a push to ban the .50 BMG is next. Doesn't mean they'll win or even get very far.

I also believe that the anti's would like to see the following banned:

All long guns with detachable magazines.
All aftermarket extra capacity fixed magazines or extension gadgets for long guns.
All pistol magazines holding more than 6 rounds.
All guns in current military/police calibers:
.308, .223, .45 ACP, 9mm, .357 Mag, .38 Sp.
All handguns .40 caliber and over.
All handguns under a certain size criteria- some arbitrary length and width combination.
Possession of more than 50 rounds of ammunition.
CHL/CHP/CCW.

I hate to be a one issue voter, but it looks like that's what it's going to come down to.
 
Good replies, all. Two things:

1. Regarding optics not being protected by the 2nd: If I were representing a citizen injured by a optics ban law, I would strongly argue the second amendment protects all firearms AND firearm parts/accessories which would be useful to making that weapon more effective for a militia/military, regardless of whether it's an integral accessory or aftermarket - it just makes sense under the original intent.

2. Regarding not seeing a full-cap ban repeal soon, we REALLY need to get to the bottom of this question, because it's been brought up but never resolved before. My understanding is the hi-cap ban portion of the 1994 "crime bill" is set to automatically sunset after 10 years (2004). That means the antis would have to pass it AGAIN. Inertia is an incredibly powerful force - it's much easier to prevent a new law than repeal an old. So all we have to do is be ready for the political fight if the nonsense is re-introduced, and we can easily defeat this crap if we're not caught off guard like we were in 1994. Look, we've got FOUR YEARS to get ready for this - if we can't stop a new hi-cap ban with this lead time, then we're hopeless. But we can, and we're not. Especially in light of the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of hi-cap bans being a factor in reducing crime. John Lott has proven scientifically, without a shadow of a doubt, that CCW laws are what is reducing crime right now, though admittedly, Lott says higher arrest rates and conviction rates also dramatically lower crime (duh), and therefore there may be evidence that Clinton's "100,000 extra police" may have contributed, if the extra cops ACTUALLY led to higher anything rates.
 
Remember the "cop killer bullet" scenario? The one where a pistol bullet can penetrate a vest? That is what will be next, but how?

The benchmark for a "pistol round" will be the Thompson Center Contender and the Remington XP-100. Both of these are chambered in damned near every rifle cartridge available. They also will penetrate a vest. This will move the rifle cartridges into the realm of pistol cartridges and there goes your gun regardless of caliber because you simply won't be able to get ammo for it any more except on the black market -- you bad, bad, criminal you.

Need a nice paper weight?
 
Need a nice paper weight?

Yeah, Perata's head encased in Lucite would be nice. ;)

Note to the lurkers: I'M JUST KIDDING!


------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
Red Bull and John-
Good points about the defeatism angle. I think most read the original question in terms of what items are likely to be the next targets. Whether tey're banned is up to us.
Rich
 
The way I understand the Asault weapons ban is that it IS a ten year ban also.

AARP says so and I believe them.

Of course we wouldn't here this from dealers trying to sell Hi-Cap mags.

------------------
The new guy.

"I'm totin, this pistol because my dang SKS won't fit in my holster"
 
Boy, it is good to hear of some laws being Sunsetted -- I thought that idea had petered out.

The last law I remember being Sunsetted was one giving a tax break to Kalifornians back in the 80s.

Too bad all laws couldn't be done that way. Then the pols would be too busy trying to keep their pets alive that they wouldn't pass new ones -- and a lot of really useless ones would die a natural death. Ah, perchance to dream.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
So much speculation!
Say, where are the guys from OZ when you need them, huh? All you have to do is look at GB, OZ, Canada and S.Africa to see where it's all going.
They, the people down under, have been telling us right along how it will go, and no body seems to have noticed.
"Never happen here"-Yeah, Ok, I'll keep that in mind as I stand outside the sports complex that my sin-tax pays for and light one up. Can't do that inside ya know, there's No Smoking.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.

http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Right here, Hal. Been watching this thread with interest.

I agree with the poster who said this is what they will try to ban; whether they succeed or not is up to you.

I'll tell you one thing though: for every success they have, their strength doubles and yours halves; for every success they have, they'll ask for double next time; for every inch you back up, they'll take a mile. Turn your heads for an instant and you will be, as we say here, "rooted".

My guess on what they will try to ban, based on bitter experience, and in this order (or close to it):

* .50 cal or over (an "easy" target)
* full autos
* "assault" guns (any military lookalike)
* handguns, especially those "evil" semi-autos
* all semi-auto longarms, including shotguns and rimfires
* pump-action shotguns
* crossbows
* body armour
* tasers and the like
* pepper sprays
* BB guns ("for the children")
* replica firearms
* gings/catapults/slingshots (call 'em what you will)
* "smokies" (underwater powerheads)
* ammunition
* reloading components
* double edged knives
* "combat" knives
* martial arts "weapons"
* plastic pellet-firing toy guns
* paintball guns

Why do I think this?

Guess!!

B
 
The answer to the question at hand is, "What ever they can." Erosion of a Right is simply that, erosion.

One piece at a time, one gun, one caliber, one make, one model...its all erosion of a Right.

The way to fight this erosion is by IGNORING it. Ignore these un-Constitutional "laws" and "ordinances". Taking the approach that as an American citizen, you are "the people" mentioned throughout the Constitution. And violations, usurpation, corruption, and erosion of the unalienable Rights outlined in that great document, DO NOT APPLY TO THE PEOPLE! We are protected by the Constitution. Any violation by an elected official to thwart the Rule of Law (Constitution) is a CRIME. Following their un-Constitutional dicates is therefore NOT required by "the People".

The weakness that these violators of the Constitution depend upon, is your trustworthiness to OBEY ALL LAWS. IGNORE THEM!

So long as you are a peaceable citizen and stay away from standard criminal acts, you are no threat to anyone, no matter how many guns you may have.

No matter how you comprehend it, the Constitution is clear. And so long as elected officials take an oath of office confirming their committment to protect and defend the Constitution, we need not obey un-Constitutional "laws".
 
In the short term, I think that the majority of posts are correct, the 50. will go first, then the semi-autos.

However, looking at the bigger picture, and longer term, I see the one thing being banned that would render almost all weapons useless; Ammunition.

I live in NY, and chucky schumer is my Sen. I've watched him run to the cameras for a number of years before he came on to the national scene.

Chucky has always believed that the govt. should take away the ammunition because that would be the most efective way to deal with the "gun problem". He has lately refrained from saying this in public, because too many of his (cough,cough,) constituents have fire arms. Chucky was intent on being elected Sen, and to do this, he needed the upstate voters. Upstate NY,to those who have a picture of NY State being one big city, is mostly rural and there are quite a few gun owners here, so an ammunition ban wouldn't fly, then. But that was then, this is now, and chucky schumer wants the big one, uh.. office I mean. His big issue will be gun control and his method will be an ammunition restriction, then a total ban.
Sorry, this turned into more of a chucky rant than I intended.


------------------
jones
 
jones,
No problem on the Chuck rant. I despise the man. During the Senate hearing on Waco, Chuck kept referring to the concussion grenades as flash bangs when they were thrown into the compound. When they were thrown out of the compound, they reverted back to concussion GRENADES! I feel for you living under his thumb. I've never seen a picture of him where he didn't have that stupid smirk on his face.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.

http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Some of you guys are being defeatist. When you say things like "I'll snatch up the guns that I know they won't take NOW is ludicrous". The socialist bas***d gov'mt want you to say this. Statements like this mean that it's OK to take what you think is dangerous, so we'll stick to what we know you think is OK. The Australian gentleman is the only one who truly knows what it's like to live under BS socialist oppression. It's illegal to take firearms from the people, and I'll be very very surprised if anyone in The People's Rep of Kali even raises a finger in resistance to gov'mt tyranny come Jan 1.
 
i posted this before but it bears consideration in this issue:

Florida has a new law under consideration
Although i have been advised that it stands no chance of passage (go RKBA!),
the text defines an assault rifle using new adjustments to the 1994 formula http://www.leg.state.fl.us/session/2000/House/bills/billtext/html/billtext/hb0363.html
listed are ~ 45 specific guns including:

e. Colt AR-15 series.

later on they define "series":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For purposes of this paragraph, the term "series" includes all
other models that are only variations, with minor differences,
of those models listed in this paragraph, regardless of the
manufacturer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
then they broaden the scope of the definition to cover non mentioned rifles:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a),
"assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the
following:

a. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon.

b. A thumbhole stock. <---new

c. A folding or telescoping stock.

d. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. <--- flares

e. A flash suppressor.

f. A forward pistol grip. <---new for rifles

2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed
magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an
overall length of less than 30 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Folks, whomever crafted these paragraphs has figured out how to define nearly every current battle rifle,
only a Garand may slip though.
The series clause, (which is only applied to the AR-15)
effectively defines a 22lr AR, a pump AR, a 308 AR, or a single shot AR, as an assault rifle

Bill Ruger's Mini 14 escapes being named the definition,
and it also squeaks out of the defined feature list, as the weapon is configured by Ruger.
Add a Butler Creek stock and you have manufactured an assault rifle.

The only civilian battle rifle loophole i see, is if you clean sheet design a rim fire, large caliber semi rifle.
Unless the we actively fight the definition of weapons as an assault class,
IMHO, the next step will be the registration of all defined weapons
This law may fail to pass in Florida but its definition meme will appear again.

This definition infringes the US citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

RKBA!
doc Zox
 
DZ just said a bunch! The U.S. Bureacracy piles it on to reach their world order agenda and they pile it on the citizens. There is not much hope for an average CITIZEN/TAXPAYER
to read any of the cr*p they publish. I know that they relish in making the codes hard for us to read and interpret but making the bills in the Legislature impossible to keep up with is a wonderful idea. "Today, we will vote on SB XXXX titled Centerlines on all Federal Highways" next thing you know they outlawed Ford Pickups! Whatever happened to A Government For and Of The People?
We just let it get WAY out of hand.
The rules have already been broken.
Hank
 
Man, I've always wanted an MP-5, I hope one of them is carrying one, oh, and a few of those flashbangs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top