Question for those in AWB states

[CapnMac]

nobody knew if there would be an AWB enacted, or if there was, whether it would "grandfather" currently owned weapons, or require them to be turned in

And, those are valid question, too.

The anti live in a utopian vision where a thing can be banned, and would magically vanish the next day. Because they are Intention-based, they ignore basic facts and truths that those of use who are actions-based consider as a first premise.

 

[pdsmith505]

Actually, there's considerable evidence of what happens--it just does not get much press (for both the reasons expressed by GEM and for going against narrative).
In Australia, compliance may have reached as high as a third.
Canadian compliance was almost non-existent.
New Zealand compliance appears to be abysmal.

Within the US, compliance in the NE runs from scandalous to flagrant.

Even in compliant European states, illegal firearms turn up every day.

Out west, refusal to comply with new gun regulations extends to law enforcement as well... take Washington and New Mexico for example:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-was...se-to-enforce-new-gun-control-law-11550066400

At least 16 elected sheriffs, primarily from rural, conservative counties that voted against the measure, say they won’t enforce the law because they believe it is unconstitutional. Most have been vague about which parts they won’t impose.

https://www.gunpowdermagazine.com/n...-anti-2a-laws-24-counties-become-sanctuaries/

Out of the 33 county sheriffs in New Mexico, 29 signed a letter written by the New Mexico Sheriffs Association disapproving of the gun control push in Santa Fe (the full letter is published at the end of this article).

As of this writing, 24 of those counties have passed a “Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution” declaring that sheriffs in those counties will not enforce any gun control legislation that is unconstitutional.

“Twenty-nine out of the 33 New Mexico Sheriffs agree that the rush to react to the violence by proposing controls on guns is ill conceived and is truly a distraction to the real problems proliferating violence in our counties and our state,” the letter reads

Granted, what exactly the term "any gun control legislation that is unconstitutional" means is up for debate. If the laws in question go to the courts and are upheld, will the sheriff's enforce them then?

 

[Zoogster]

As time goes on the people not around when they were so against the law when it passed will enforce it though. Relying on local non compliance only works for a generation or so, and still not for the individuals charged.

When such firearms are restricted or banned it empowers the young men that travel in groups, the organized crime, and law enforcement at the expense of the citizens.
Mexico is a perfect example.
Firearms that can deliver good firepower cease to be in the hands of the citizen, and only in the hands of the law enforcement and organized crime.
This is the desired situation from a position of power and what governments across the world seek. A tiered system of arms, with citizens at the bottom, and the less they can have the less the tier above them needs to have, because they only trust localized law enforcement slightly more than the average citizen. Organized crime will always obtain whatever is available to law enforcement, and sometimes the military, if that is what is needed to fight eachother and whatever citizen stands in their way..

This forum censors real topics and conversations that address any issue outside of firearms though, and sadly firearm rights as its own circular logic I do not think will remain strong enough over time.
The electorate is changing. Texas has almost flipped blue and will soon, as has Virginia, and Florida tried to give felons back their voting rights until they reduced the impact of that by requiring them be done with serving all their time and paying all their fines (most of whom are expected Democrats, not that I support disenfranchising people). Any one of these things would have changed the outcome of elections going back to Bush.
Many other states are rapidly changing, and most of the change is from recent immigrants and their children.
The Democrats are favoring unlimited immigration, and new waves of most immigrants with nothing starting at the bottom vote for the party that will support them and pay for things with others' tax dollars. While the legal immigrants are mainly from overpopulated Asian nations like India and China, where they have tens of millions more men than women (from choosing to kill their own girls on a massive scale as male children are preferred), and will be close to a billion and a half people each soon. They have ruined their qualities of life overpopulating their regions and if we bring in a bunch of them will result in the same here, but big business always wants skilled people that will work for less and is not motivated by what makes life best for the average US citizen.
Asian-Americans are the single most anti-gun demographic in the United States statistically as well.
So those being brought in at the bottom vote for the people that ban guns, and those being brought in closer to the top are also anti-gun more often than not. So the faster we bring in more people the faster things will be changing.

If items are banned but keep popping up they create new laws to ban them more. Trying to figure out if you can store them in various ways ignores this. If they ban assault weapons but lots of assault weapons keep popping up they will expand the definition of assault weapon.

 

[AlexanderA]

Trying to figure out if you can store them in various ways ignores this.

State bans (in my case, in Virginia) are likely to come before any federal ban. Therefore, the importance of my question. How do I deal with a state ban, without actually relinquishing my guns or becoming a felon, during the time window before there's a federal ban? I'm 74 years old, and a few years' delay could well be for the rest of my life.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This forum censors real topics and conversations that address any issue outside of firearms though, and sadly firearm rights as its own circular logic I do not think will remain strong enough over time.
The electorate is changing. Texas has almost flipped blue and will soon, as has Virginia, and Florida tried to give felons back their voting rights until they reduced the impact of that by requiring them be done with serving all their time and paying all their fines (most of whom are expected Democrats, not that I support disenfranchising people)....

Well, this is a gun board, and so our focus is narrow. But even subject to that limitation there are things to discuss.

1. As has been discussed before, we're in a culture war.
   
   Younger urbanites just don't see guns as relevant to their lives. They're afraid of guns and people with guns and, since guns aren't important to them personally, they're inclined to vote for folks who claim to be able to remove guns from society.
   
   Is it possible to convince a portion of such folks that guns can be relevant to their live? How?
   
   
2. As we become a more urban society gun owners are increasingly looked down upon as hicks or knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
   
   Much of today's anti-gun sentiment is a byproduct of the continuing urbanization of America. California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., are strongly anti-gun in part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.
   
   People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. The city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, etc.; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceives are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.
   
   The there's the question of how to make a dent in urban anti-gun sentiments. Can we challenge those anti-gun sentiments by demonstrating that sophisticated, urbane perspectives on other things aren't inexorably intertwined with hating guns?
   
3. We have a political packaging problem.
   
   the vast majority of people are not "one issue" voters. Each candidate has a platform -- an assortment of positions on a variety of issues such as gun control, minority rights, welfare, immigration policy, gay rights, women's issues, foreign policy, free trade, etc. To some extent a candidate's platform is defined by the platform of the party with which he's affiliated.
   
   Different voters have different core, or defining, interests. For example, someone might have a very strong interest in minority rights and will favor a candidate whose platform position on minority rights most closely aligns with his own. He will do so even though that candidate's pro-gun control position is inconsistent with the voter's [weak] pro-RKBA view.
   
   In many ways, in a number of States especially, the RKBA community has severe "packaging" problems as far as available candidates go. Too often a pro-RKBA candidate's position on various social issues make him an unacceptable choice for some voters who are pro-RKBA but also more aligned on various social issues. I see that a lot here -- where I know some shooters who just can't seem to bring themselves to go along with the one reasonably pro-RKBA candidate because of his positions on other issues.

These are matters which could be discussed on THR -- although not necessarily the Legal Forum.

So let's get back on topic.

 

[roscoe]

Too often a pro-RKBA candidate's position on various social issues make him an unacceptable choice for some voters who are pro-RKBA but also more aligned on various social issues. I see that a lot here -- where I know some shooters who just can't seem to bring themselves to go along with the one reasonably pro-RKBA candidate because of his positions on other issues.

This is the key. If RKBA cannot get disentangled from debates over abortion, LBGT rights, environmental issues, health care, etc., then we will get dragged down by a party that might be on the verge of losing quite a bit of political power. I am not aware of the NRA reaching out to urban populations, just more preaching to the country-music choir.

I have quite a few gay friends who see the value of CCW, and some who carry, but has there been any attempt by the NRA to build a political coalition around the inherent libertarian principles that might be found in common there? (Hint - the answer is 'NO'). I grew up in the inner city, and many working black folks keep a pistol or shotgun around because of the crime, but they are repelled by the likes of Dana Loesch.

This is not the way to win the long game.

 

[GEM]

I know (secret knowledge) that the NRA marketing folks think that their short term financial gains are more if they arouse a conservative base. Expansion of the base through outreach is not thought to be a money winner. In fact, board members who might contribute to outreach tend to be correlated with the current displeasure with leadership and are being removed from positions.