How long do we really think it will take for a BAN ?

[benEzra]

I keep hearing this, over and over. "The assault weapons ban cost the Democrats the control of the houses."

What proof is there to support this theory?

Do you honestly think that enough people in the general population give a damn about guns or "assault weapons" to care about that? ...

I don't really buy this. But then again, when it was happening, I was simply too young to understand.

Does anyone here have any real evidence that the Dems' pursuit of gun control and their AWB really did "cost them"?

Straight from the horse's mouth (from President Clinton's autobiography My Life):

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

And Clinton got re-elected - don't forget that little detail.

A big reason Clinton squeaked out a win in 1996 was that the genuises running Bobdole's campaign decided to carpet-bomb gun owners and endorse pretty much every stitch of Clinton's gun control policy as part of their message. The NRA's 1996 slogan was "Elect a Clinton-Proof Congress," not "Defend Freedom, Elect Dole." There was a reason for that.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think they will go after private party transfers and call it a day. Their legacy will be preventing "illegal gun sales between unlicensed individuals". Registration is WAY too expensive (see Canada's gun registry). Confiscation is even more expensive and would be nigh impossible. Handguns are off the table because of Heller. I'd bet that AWs would be too, as some AWs are considered handguns.

I'm also pretty sure that Obama doesn't want immediate and large backlash the moment he takes office. There are enough Republicans in congress to filibuster, there are enough pro-gun Democrats to stand up for our rights. There is the NRA, which will fight like hell. Then there are all of us, who are purchasing these weapons by the truckload to make sure that they are considered "common".

Stay vigilant, but don't worry yourselves sick. Keep buying AWs and hi-caps as you are doing. Let's ready our arguments for January. We'll fight this like hell and we'll win.

 

[Pilot]

Well they won't make the same mistake they did in 1993/1994 when the passed that crap right before an election. They will do it soon so there will be at least a year for people to forget. You and I won't forget, but a lot of people will.

 

[HoosierQ]

I'm with Hoplophile. I just don't think gun control is as big an issue, even with liberals, as all of us fear. Second of all, there are two things in our favor, the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Heller.

Let's take a case in point. Ronald Reagan, God bless him, hated abortion like poison. He had a Republican congress and, by and large, we had a pretty conservative electorate in those days. Never heard the man back down on abortion one time. But, was he able to change things? Did he get past Roe v Wade? No to both. And with abortion, there is no constitutional ammendment...just a SCOTUS decision.

With RKBA we have both a SCOTUS decision (a recent and pretty darned specific one) and a Constitutional Ammendment on our side.

Stock up on some ammo because everybody else is going to do so but I really think that, by and large, gun ownership is still going to be a factor of American life for a long time. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but I just don't see it going too badly. I hope I am wrong anyway.

Ironically, this whole campaign has been great for firearms retail and I assume manufacturers. That's kind of funny...but nobody's laughing.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

[CoRoMo]

They'll wait for the next "incident" to react to. Sort of like the 700B bailout.

Or...

Executive order the Clinton "Crime Bill" back in.

 

[Mr. T]

How long for the Gun Ban???

I would think that he and his anti friends will try it in pieces. We'll see the first segment of his anti agenda within the first two years. The harshest step(attempted seizures) will come about not possibly until his second term. Just my opinion of course. The point is he and his cronies will try it. Any assault on the 2nd amendment should be met with absolute public disobediance. If that doesn't work, well then other steps will have to be taken.

Mr. T
__________________________________________________________
"Do you really think you can shoot down all of those men before they shoot you....no, no, Mr. Josey Wales.... in this country we have something called Justice" --- "Well Mr. Carpet Bagger we have something in this country called the Missouri Boat Ride!"

 

[jcramin]

I think he will take care of the Economy and Iraq and some other things this term so he can make people happy and as soon as he gets in his 2nd term then go after guns big time because then he wont care who he makes mad he will be in another 4 years by then.

 

[mgregg85]

Heller won't hold them back one bit in passing it. It was a positive decision but not a very good one.

I'm thinking we have at least 4 to 6 months to buy up whatever we want before prices get insane.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

It depends *entirely* upon whether or not there is an MPS during the administration, giving the antis fodder and public sentiment in favor of a ban.

No MPS = no new gun laws
MPS = (likely) new gun laws

It's all about the MPS's, man. Luckily, since the social science data proves unequivocally that shall-issue CCW laws reduce MPSs, there are about 34 states where they are not likely to occur (except in "gun free, victim-rich zones within those states).

 

[metatr0n]

I don't see it happening in 2009, at least. Consider this:

HR1022 (which we should call HR 10/22, since that's all we'll have left if it gets passed! ) was introduced in February of 2007, and as you can see here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01022: - it hasn't even made it on the subcommittees calendar. So it's basically been idling at the first of 13 steps to law for almost two years! (see: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/basics/?style=legis) ALSO, there's no "filter" on what actually gets to the first step, and there have been some pretty ridiculous pieces of legislation introduced that never see the light of day.

Now, obviously, even our slow and lumbering congress can sometimes run a bill through on a rail, like the Wall St. bailout. But as many others have stated, this issue is the least pressing of many to most Americans.

Clearly, it's in our nature to be paranoid about something as serious as this, but if you took some of the posts on this forum as fact then you'd probably expect Obama to be inaugurated, pray to the east, chop off a baby's head, pull out a quill pen and sign an Executive Order in blood to ban assault weapons on top of the Qur'an Remember, he's still a puppet like all those before and after - and the fact that his anti-gun literature was removed from Change.gov is comforting to me. He and his handlers know how much political capital his party had to burn to get to this point and I highly doubt they will throw it away on something that proved to be ineffective in hindsight.

So, in summary, in the remote chance it were to happen, it won't be for a couple of years, at which point I should have my long-backorder'd AR-15 upper
And if you really care and want to make sure that it doesn't happen? Join the NRA and write to your state representatives. It doesn't have to be out of our hands!

Tangent: Maybe I live in the wrong part of the country, but the Democrats I know could give a rat's ass about gun control. To me, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the vilification of these supposed "antis" - maybe because I don't know any? Maybe because I was 13 when the original ban was passed and only owned a bb gun?

 

[tulsamal]

Good post Kansas!

My US Representative is a Democrat. Rated A+ by the NRA. I would rather have an A+ Republican but I'm not worried in the least about him supporting any gun control. He isn't going to care whether or not Pelosi tells him to "toe the line." (I fixed that expression. "Tow the line" was too funny! Tow it to where?!)

Gregg

 

[Clipper]

I believe there will be a ban on imported milsurp, as well as military caliber ammo for civilian use. This is easily accomplished with a simple Executive Order. There will be a debilitating tax on ammo and reloading components, and an elimination of any 'off the books' FTF transfers of any kind. I'm sure a bill will be introduced making it illegal to transfer or inherit any one of dozens of 'assault weapons', which will require the destruction of any such weapon (which hill require some kind of registration) upon the death of the owner. Much of this can be accomplished 30 seconds after BHO is sworn in, by E.O...

 

[tmajors]

I say within the first 100 working hours after new congress is sworn in.

I revise my statement. First 50 hours or sooner with the soon to be stolen seats in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia giving the Senate their 60 votes.

 

[tpaw]

With all the other problems our new prez will have to deal with, Do you think another law will pass like that and how long do you think it will take to pass another law like that ?

Probably not any longer than Clinton. All he has to do is assign a staff to "Git Err Done".

 

[gym]

Real or just a Marketing ploy

Allowing a inexperianced man or woman, of any age, a weapon used for military use, like an AR, is like giving that same person a new car with 500 Hp. Which happens all the time. The outcome is usually predictibale. There are going to be more accidents with that group when compared to the rest. That's why you don't see a lot of old muscle cars around, they didn't wear out, Cuba has cars a lot older than 60's running fine. It's that they got wrapped around poles, because the driver had little or no training. I have carried for 4 decades all the time in 2 states, and love my guns, they aren't a fad after the first 25 years. But other than the experienced gun owner, long distance, competitor, Swat officer, or some other catagory that has a need for these weapons of war, there is no reason for the average joe to have a 2-3 thousand dollar assault rifle in the closet.Especially if he never took a course and just bought it to show off to his friends. It sure isn't for hunting, or for things that go bump in the night. If you think there is going to be a reveloution of sorts, and you are trying to prepare, perhaps a passport would be of more use. I never thought I would be saying that, but it's getting pretty rediculous when every other guy in the 20-60 year old range who can't figure out how to take their pistol apart properlly to clean it is now buying a weapon used to shoot large amounts of people in the shortest most effeciant way. I found myself thinking about getting one, then thought about other stuff I could actually use more that one or two times. If you hunt, there are better calibers, depending on what you hunt. and for target yes you could use a 308 for medium to long distance but there are better calibers for that also. And as an investmant, well you better not plan on them appreciating for a hundred years. I guess I just don't get it anymore, if obamma, who I didn't vote for, nor care for, tries to pass anti assault hi-cap etc he will just alienate more folks, so I guess it feels like a big hype job to sell the millions of AR's sitting out there. If you know of a good deal on one let me know, lol

 

[7.62X25mm]

I thought this site didn't get "political" --

 

[X-Rap]

That right there folks is as good a reason to join a hard core pro 2a group as I have seen.
The uppity superiority almost seaps out of that post. That is big brother incarnate telling us what is good for us and not.
You can see a true friend of the 2a a mile away can't you?

 

[Dougelas]

Gun Ban.

I'm not sure it will happen TOO soon, it will most likely be a longer process, because then people won't notice as quickly. I actually heard, but haven't established the claim, that they will be adding some chemical to gunpowder that it expires after 6 months. That's a more subtle change that will hopefully not take place. But just in case, stock up on any ammo you may need.

Funny story, actually; in my SCHOOL (I go to a very conservative, pro constitution, Christian school, mind you) we actually talked about what would happen if it came down to the military just taking our guns. Most people I know would be going to my friend's house in the country and staking it out. I know he personally has about 15 guns, including a military grade sniper and AK-47. So both he and I will be defending our right to bear arms.

Also, I will definitely want to buy more of my own guns before January hits us, never know. I'll also be doing a shooting campout before then, hopefully (Boy Scout, here).

 

[5knives]

Chicago Ward Politician!

Says it all, but I guess you have to have experienced "The Windy City" to understand what that means.

"Vote Early and Vote often!" is NOT a joke, it's SOP.

The phrase "You can't fight City Hall" does not mean you should not fight City Hall. it means you CAN'T fight City Hall, not if you want to emerge undamaged.

Personal power increase is his goal, everything he does is to that end.

Pushed for 500% tax on firearms and Ammunition (one of the few things he's ever voted on in fact!)

On record as favoring a ban on and a cancelation of all CCW permits.

He'll ban what he wants to as soon as he sees a benefit to himself.

And his tame Congress, Senate and Courts will support him!

Even here ... a lot of people are going to be very surprised by how much 'Change' they just bought into.

And we aren't going to like the result one little bit!

Archive this thread and resurrect it one year from today!

It won't be very amusing, but it'll sure point out the weakness some of us have in our logical thought processes.

Maybe mine too, it'll be interesting to experience the next year.

Very Interesting!

For a peek into our Firearms future, just look at Australia, Canada and Great Britain.

JMHO, as always, YMMV and obviously some do.

That's okay too, it's just talk!

Regards,

 

[Girodin]

I spoke in person with my democratic congressional representative today on the issue of a new AWB. He opined that it will not happen. He cited a few reasons he doesn't see it as even being on the agenda.

1. The first one did nothing to curb crime in anyway (I know some liberals don't care but it makes it much harder to argue for)

2. Obama is probably pragmatic enough to avoid the pitfalls of Clinton pre 94 and will likely govern more from the center left than the far left.

3. No matter what Obama wants Congress must pass the bill and he is of the opinion that there is simply not the support to get it through congress. He is one of the leading blue dog Democrats and stated plainly he would oppose any such bill. Many of the seats picked up are in fact moderate Democrats.

4. More serious long term problems that need to be dealt with and are where political capitol will be spent. Namely two wars, a financial crisis, and energy concerns.

I personally have felt that if Obama is being a pragmatic politician he will not pursue an AWB. It will be interesting to see his cabinet appointments etc which may give us a clue into how far to the left he plans to go. Time will tell but I don't see AWB II in the very near future, probably not in a first term if ever.

 

[Kind of Blued]

I'm not one for throwing in the towel, but let's be realistic. Gun control has continued to march forward in this country for decades. We get occasional small pushbacks against the overall goal of disarmament, but for the next 4 years, we are screwed.

My dream of redemption, if AWBII MUST happen, is for it to be challenged, go to the SCOTUS, be declared unconstitutional under Heller, and for Obama to be impeached for signing an unconcstitutional law into effect. As unlikely and time-consuming as it might be, it would be a beautiful thing.

ANYBODY in power would be awfully scared to touch the issue for quite a while after that.

 

[everallm]

Kind_of_Blued

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Signing a law that is later challenged and reversed on constitutional grounds is not grounds for impeachment. Attempting to enforce it AFTER it has been so ruled would be.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

My opinion is that they'll push it asap and use the troubled economy via the media to hide it from public interest.

If barry signs it all bets are off and America will become more divided then it was the day before.:banghead:

 

[mljdeckard]

2nd term. Quit freaking out.

They know they have a very limited timeframe to work with that they control both houses. They have some very big promises to fulfill. They won't waste time or political capital on an issue that is controversial, would divide the majority, and not have a high likelihood of passing anyway.

 

[Old Fuff]

Bill Clinton was sworn in on January 20, 1993

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed and signed into law on September 13, 1994

And in November Bill Clinton woke up the day after the '94 election and discovered that his party didn't control the House or Senate anymore. As a consequence his whole agenda was lost to gridlock. Years later in a book he remembered this, and remarked that taking on the gun issue was one of the worst mistakes they made.

This of course was before the Heller case where the Supreme Court decided that:

1. The American people have a constitutional right to own firearms.

2. That the Washington DC ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional.

Could a future court change that? Sure. But doing so would take years - much longer then the current president-elect is likely to remain in office.

In late 2007 an internal industry survey showed that that the sale of Traditional Firearms vs. Tactical Firearms were about equal. This came as a tremendous shock to some that had presumed that tactical sales were much less then they really were – and this was well before the current panic buying was going on. Most gun owners (and others) have no idea how widespread tactical firearm ownership is.

All Democrats aren’t pushing for gun control. Recently a bill was passed in the House that would have prevented the Washington D.C. City Council from passing any more gun laws by removing their authority to do so. The Democrat leadership did everything they could to stop this bill, but it passed anyway – Because some 45 southern and western representatives voted with the Republicans to pass it. They knew that supporting the left-wing leadership on this issue (guns) could cost them in the forthcoming election because gun control was not popular in they’re districts. These Democrats know that voting for any gun ban might guarantee another election like 1994, and regardless of what the president and left-wing party leaders want, they want to keep their seats.

At this time there is no widespread public demand for more gun control legislation. Polltakers don’t even list gun control anymore as it’s well below the public’s radar. Today economic issues, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and medical care reform are what voters want to see action taken on. Radical Democrats may want gun control laws in the worst way, but given the circumstances I’ve listed above it’s not going to be at the head of the list.

So calm down, keep your powder dry, join the NRA and GOA, and get ready for what will be a hard fight. But keep in mind that we are in a better position today then we ever were in the past.

The Old Fuff knows. He’s been at the warfront since before the 1968 GCA was passed.