• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Next battle in repealing federal gun laws?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LAR-15

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
3,385
After the 1994 ban sunsets this year, what next?

Obviously we go on the offensive. GOA, NRA, all of us gunowners.

I would have to say the 1968 "sporting purpose clause".

This has been used to ban a whole host of guns from Sten guns to Walther PPKs.

Okay so what law do you think we should attack next?
 
Don't put the cart before the horse. The battle isn't over. Come July or August there WILL be incredible amounts of "you don't need an AK-47 to go hunting" and other nonsense, and DiFi, Chucky, and Teddy will fall over themselves trying to pass a renewal somehow.
 
Yeah but Congress recesses from late July to Early September.

Even the VPC has virtually conceded defeat.

That is why they shifted the focus back to .50 caliber guns.
 
Yeah but Congress recesses from late July to Early September.
Click to expand...
They can meet during normal recess periods if enough members agree to do so. I'm not positive, but can't the president also call congress back during recess if there's "important" legislation they want to pass?
 
If the AWB is not passed by the recess then forget it.

They ain't coming back to pass it.

That would be stupid if they're not going to pass between now and mid July.
 
The best defense is a good offense. How 'bout repealing the tax on silencers? It'd be nice to shoot without worrying about going deaf.
 
Yeah but Congress recesses from late July to Early September.
Click to expand...

Who's to say they won't bring it up again? Hell, if sKerry gets in, it seems like an AWB would be a priority for him, especially in light of his recent votes in the Senate.

I agree with you guys, though...the .50 BMG will be the new "assault weapon" of the VPC-crowd. :barf:
 
For the AWB to sunset, all Congress has to do is do nothing. The fight to keep it sunsetted has been hard enough. If it didn't have a sunset provision, I doubt a repeal would ever be passed. Repealing something like the Brady Bill wouldn't have a chance. IMO, the best thing to work for, and the most likely to pass, is national CCW reciprocity ala HR 990.
 
well we could....
ease import restrictions
get rid of sporting purposes clause.....or add a self-defense clause !
or...
Free guns for everyone!
(maybe not)
BSR
 
Bush wins: yes, we'll do *something* to advance at the Fed level. Dunno what...God knows there's enough possibilities. Federal CCW reciprocity would be a possible...or re-try the gun manufacturer's liability thing.

Kerry wins: holding action at the Fed level, as we don't have veto-proof majorities of pro-gunners in congress. (We might come close in the House, but the Senate, ferget it.) BUT we'll be energized at the state level - expect more CCW states such as WI, NE, etc.

Wildcards: "personal-scale" attacks by Islamofascists patterned after the sort of BS the Palestinians have used in Israel will help push shall-issue CCW, in my opinion. Might even strengthen "citizen militia concepts" of one sort or another.
 
Even if the ban isn't sunsetted, we could still vote a straight Republican ballot in November. That would probably give us the added Senate votes to pass any other gun rights bill we wanted.

Is that going to happen? I doubt it. If the AWB is signed again, look for gun owners to shoot themselves in the foot just like in 1992 and elect kerry.

Standing Wolf. You were told no more silly cracks aganst the NRA on this website.
Still making childish insults about the NRA? At least they're doing something. No one has ever given me a single instance of a victory the GOA has actually accomplished on their own.
 
PLeeeeeaze! Thread Drift!!!

WE KNOW that the GOA-vs-NRA thing is irresistible to some folks, but some of us just want to point out that the horse has been beaten so long it's a grease spot. It makes me wish for a simple Glock-vs-1911 side-argument; by comparison, that's a game of croquet instead of bare-knockle boxing.

This was a perfectly good thread, with some insight being offered. I humbly request that folks stick to the point, O-negai-shimasu.
 
Happy Bob makes an excellent point.

Personally, I think that the "sporting purpose" clause of the 1968 law would make a just target. Start by reexamining what constitutes sporting purpose at the executive level and eventually do away with it entirely.

From a practical standpoint, it is a much less appealing target though since the industry and NSSF will oppose it as who wants to open their industry to competition from China and other countries who operate at half the labor costs? Add to that the number of small businesses that exist to add 10 U.S. parts to imports and I don't think you'll see any revision of the sporting purpose clause for awhile.

Now suppressors... if you can educate the public on the insignificant cosmetic differences of the assault weapon ban, I think you could make a good argument for suppressors. Especially since they are encouraged in many European countries (even Great Britain) where gun ownership is heavily restricted. I think dropping suppressors from NFA requirements is doable and sets the stage for later efforts nicely.
 
I like the idea of making silencers easier to get but I think the best next step is the 1989 executive order banning import of some guns. With the assault gun silliness out of the way there is no reason to disallow the import of guns that are legal if they are made in america.

I actually wrote my rep and senators once proposing to ease NFA restriction on silencers, but I know they did not take it seriously. They are dedicated anti gun people.
 
boy, you guys are optimists

I'm not willing to say the AWB has sunset until September 15th (or whatever date it is).

Further, I'm not willing to say it has successfully sunset until after Kerry is NOT elected, and GWB doesn't surrender to passing a modified version after some relatively small firearms tragedy that the antigunners blow into a mega-event.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. And she won't do an encore until we have fire-proofed the Senate. That means getting the political activity going well enough to remove those Republican turn coats.

IOW, the time frame is l-o-n-g.

In the meantime--let's go for silencers and for the 'sporting purpose' issues. While I agree that we here have seen some of the leading-edge impact of the press and the public starting to get the cosmetics issues (and that one goes against a primary American ethos; it's why we may have succeeded), there's still a lot of education to be done.
 
Bartholomew Roberts

Personally, I think that the "sporting purpose" clause of the 1968 law would make a just target. Start by reexamining what constitutes sporting purpose at the executive level and eventually do away with it entirely.
Click to expand...

I think that one way to get the "sporting purpose" clause repealed is to concentrate on the origins of that concept. According to research done by JPFO, the concept was introduced by Senator Thomas Dodd, father of current plutocrat Chris Dodd (Jackass-CT), who in turn got it from the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law. Yes, folks, that's right, Hitler & his legal beagals were able to ban guns in the hands of Jews, Gypsies and even ordinary Germans, so long as they were designated it as "non-sporting."

Note that this concept is an old one. In England in the 1600's, opponents of the King were gradually disarmed by the illegalization of hunting "the King's animals." Once this was done, there was no "need" to own guns (unless, of course, you were an aristocrat loyal to the King), and thus the populace was disarmed. One encouraging thing to note - that particular line of kings (the Stewarts) was terminated with extreme prejudice in the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
 
Look for many more amendments to keep the ban attached to popular legislation that the president will find difficult to veto.

Remember what just happened to the gun manufacturers liability legislation.

The Dems really want that ban to continue and haven't conceded defeat quite yet.
 
I think there is a general misunderstanding about why the AWB is going to hopefully die.

It isnt because we have been on the offensive. The sunset provision was built in. I would say that efforts to block renewal have actually been more defensive than offensive.

If there was not a sunset provision, the AWB would be with us forever. We havent repealed anything, it just died on its own.

There is no chance further federal gun laws will be repealed.
 
Once the AWB goes (and, as pointed out, this is not a forgone conclusion), I think that we should go after the prohibition on "kitchen-table" dealers. The whole concept of the FFL didn't exist prior to 1968 - any adult (21 at the time) could order anything via the mails. At the very least (assuming that we can't repeal the FFL completely, which is likely the case), ordinary citizens should be able to do what they did prior to Clinton - pay a nominal fee to get checked out and licensed, and to not have to work through overcharging dealers.

Nationwide CCH is a fine idea - but the NY, CA, NJ and IL delegations will stop it. However, we can make it almost defacto by getting a few more states into the "shall-issue" camp and working on reciprocity between the states. Short of that, getting a FL non-resident permit is the closest thing to a national CCH that there currently is.

I wouldn't mind seeing silencers legalized. Surely, we can find some well-known politician or comedian to mock the fact that the antis scream like Hell about all of the noise at shooting ranges (and work to close them down), while simultaneously not allowing guns to be threaded to accept silencers and taxing silencers like crazy.
 
OSHA?

About hearing damage: I'm told that OSHA has come down like a ton of bricks even on military installations about working conditions in non-combat operations such as machine shops and Hazardous Materials/HazWaste storage and handling. Does anybody here have sufficient knowledge of how OSHA operates to discern whether their clout could be brought to bear in favor of making noise suppressors legal again?

Men in my family have always tended to become hard of hearing between the ages of 40 and 60 because of noise from farm machinery and gunfire (Dad was in law enforcement, but we all shoot).

Would getting OSHA interested be likely to backfire? We don't want to get them to pass even MORE regulations because of lead, powder residue, solvents and lubricants, and the fact that small pieces of metal tend to fly out of the ends of guns very, very fast.

I like Sam Adams's idea about ending the restraint of trade against small-volume 01 FFL dealers.
 
If there was not a sunset provision, the AWB would be with us forever. We havent repealed anything, it just died on its own.
Click to expand...

I've heard that twice in this thread now, but the fact is the AWB was repealed in 1996. It's just because of the sunset clause that politicians and everyone else are able to take the easy way out.
 
Why not just have a National CCW Program? Main rule, anyone that has not committed a violent felony gets to carry. No paperwork, no license. Just that simple.




Of course, the politicians, jbt's and all would never want us serfs to have that ability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
What's the NRA's next "legislative priority"?
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
bjbarron
B
Z
  • Locked
Next Pro Gun Battle?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
H
  • Locked
68 gun ban?
Replies
1
Views
385
Mark Tyson
M
B
  • Locked
Where to next in politics? This year?
Replies
9
Views
468
LAR-15
L
W
  • Locked
Rollback of Bad Gun Law
Replies
16
Views
788
wjustinen
W
Back
Top