What's the next shoe to drop in Federal legislation?

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

I fear that something is coming on the federal level soon - within the next year or two - and I'm wondering what it will be. Seems likely to me that the next piece to get pushed through, at federal level, would be a universal background check mandate. This seems like the lowest hanging fruit, right? However, these politicians are trying all sorts of crazy things these days (is it just posturing so they can grab votes?) and IDK how much longer the NRA can keep them at bay. IT seems the millenials are largely anti-gun and they've grown

Do you think it's likely that something else might pass soon? Perhaps a statute requiring a federal firearms owner's license or mandatory training or mental health checkups? Or are these items too far out of reach for the gun grabbers? I sure hope so, but I'm really trying to get a pulse on what other gun owners think and see if my concerns are in line with others'.

 

[Deanimator]

Unless the Republicans are eager to lose the House, Senate AND the Presidential election, there won't BE any new Federal anti-gun legislation.

 

[barnbwt]

It sounds funny at first, but suppressor deregulation is probably the most plausible bill to make it to passage.

TCB

 

[huntsman]

What scares me is anything that would increase the cost of ammo or reduce it's availability

 

[.455_Hunter]

It seems the millenials are largely anti-gun and they've grown

The more accurate statement is that there is a vocal percentage of millennials who are anti-gun, just like boomers and gen-x.

 

[Rio Laxas]

I was under the impression that the majority of millennials opposed gun control.

In the study, Millennials opposed gun control by a margin of 50-48 percent. Although it’s a small margin, WAMC Northeast Public Radio points out it is “roughly at par with the attitudes of older generations.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...y-majority-of-millennials-oppose-gun-control/

Forty-nine percent of millennials say it's more important to protect gun rights than control gun ownership, a figure that is roughly at par with the attitudes of older generations.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...millennials-report-should-worry-Democrats-too

According to a recent study by Harvard University's Institute of Politics, voters aged 18-29 are not clamoring for more gun control, even after the tragedies in Colorado and at Sandy Hook elementary school.

Nearly a majority of that group – 49 percent – support making gun laws more strict, according to the poll, which is part of an ongoing, comprehensive look at the millennial population. That's lower than the percentage of the adult population at large that wants tighter controls; according to a CBS/New York Times poll in January, 54 percent of voters overall want stricter laws on guns. Further, the Institute of Politics found that 35 percent of millennials believe that gun laws should be kept as they are, while 15 percent want the laws to be looser for gun owners.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2013/05/01/young-voters-want-less-gun-control

 

[The Alaskan]

Unless the Republicans are eager to lose the House, Senate AND the Presidential election, there won't BE any new Federal anti-gun legislation.

Why would you say that? What makes you think the Republicans would lose seats and/or elections if they let a gun law pass?

I mean...seriously? If, in the next legislative session, a UBC bill passed and was signed into law...what are you going to do about it? I guess you could get mad at the Republicans and vote for Democrats to punish the Republicans. I'm sure that will work.

You're not going to do anything. You're going to come online here, and whine and complain that you have to pass background check to buy a gun. And then you're going to go vote for the Republican candidate.

Gotta love that entrenched two-party system, huh?

 

[The Alaskan]

What scares me is anything that would increase the cost of ammo or reduce it's availability

Yeah, like gun owners buying up everything in sight out of pure fear and speculation. That will keep prices down.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Guessing and "blue skying" -- not really a discussion appropriate for Legal. Moving to General.

 

[yugorpk]

The only thing that absolutely will happen at the federal level is that at some point in the next year or so the ATF will implement new rules concerning NFA trust transfers requiring background checks for all trustees.. That WILL happen.

Nothing else will happen during an election year. Republicans will be showing how Republican they are and Democrats don't want to lose votes. If Obama was going to introduce any spurious ant gun EO's he would have done it by now. As the immigration EO is showing us all it takes is a few well placed lawsuits to stop that crap in its tracks.

I don't think the silencer liberation bill has a snowballs chance in hell. It would save me $200-$400 a year but after you do a few NFA transfers it doesnt seem like a big deal any more.

 

[gbran]

I'm not seeing any fed laws before the election and maybe not afterwards, depending on how the elections turn out.

 

[hso]

OP,

Where is the political will to do any of that?

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The Republican base (now defined as the Tea Party) will set at home and not vote at all if they feel betrayed by the Republican leadership, which is why both McCain and Romney were rejected giving us the "Hoping for Change" of O'Bummer......

 

[12131]

I'm surprised it's not locked, already. To me, this kind of "blue skying" is at the same level as SHTF topic.

 

[DSAPT9]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanimator
Unless the Republicans are eager to lose the House, Senate AND the Presidential election, there won't BE any new Federal anti-gun legislation.

The Alaskan
Why would you say that? What makes you think the Republicans would lose seats and/or elections if they let a gun law pass?

I mean...seriously? If, in the next legislative session, a UBC bill passed and was signed into law...what are you going to do about it? I guess you could get mad at the Republicans and vote for Democrats to punish the Republicans. I'm sure that will work.

You're not going to do anything. You're going to come online here, and whine and complain that you have to pass background check to buy a gun. And then you're going to go vote for the Republican candidate.

Gotta love that entrenched two-party system, huh?

Or you follow what 7 states have passed and several counties in Oregon basically stating they will ignore any federal gun law they deem against the second amendment through nullification. What are the feds going to do arrest everyone in the state just like they have with Colorado, Washington and Oregon over pot?

Then you start recall procedures on your federal representatives that voted for it.

 

[hso]

Wild speculation with no basis in current or upcoming national politics isn't discussion when it devolves into improbable paranoia.

WORK to keep your local and federal elected officials on notice that no restriction on gun ownership is acceptable, keep up to date on any legislative effort locally and nationally by participating in Activism and by signing up for alerts from SAF and NRA-ILA, spend real time helping to get pro 2A local politicians elected even if it is just a few hours during their campaign. Freedom requires more effort than most people are willing to put in so a few of us have to do it for the rest.

 

[Deanimator]

Why would you say that? What makes you think the Republicans would lose seats and/or elections if they let a gun law pass?

People don't have to vote Democrat. They just have to stay home.

If against ALL likelihood and reason, REPUBLICANS passed ANY gun control bill, I'd stay home. I'm an independent and have ZERO party loyalty. I don't have to vote for somebody who spits in my face merely because they have a "D" or an "R" after their name.

 

[BSA1]

IMHO...

On a Federal level I don't believe there is any chance of more restrictive gun laws being passed before the Presidential elections. Hillary has made gun control a cornerstone of her campaign which Republicans will oppose unless we get a RHINO as candidate which, as commented, will cost them a lot of votes.

On a State level the battle will continue. We have won many battles so far and unfortunately lost a few. However the State level is where your vote has the most impact as you elected Representatives and Senators are from your community.

What I believe we should be most concerned about is Obama issuing Executive Orders and his loyal political hacks in the BATF, IRS and other agencies targeting gun organizations, gun owners and the Internet with actions that are unconstitutional. The problem is it takes years for lawsuits to work their way through the Court system.

I expect Executive Orders / new regulations targeting ammunition (maybe 5.56 M-855 ammunition again), expanding background checks, limiting Speech on the Internet (this will be the nose of the camel under the tent). EPA is worth watching for more bans on lead ammunition and Park Service for restricting guns in national parks.

Importation of guns and foreign made ammunition is another easy target.

Obama has stated he intends to issue executive orders if Congress fails to pass gun control laws he wants.

 

[The Alaskan]

The Republican base (now defined as the Tea Party) will set at home and not vote at all if they feel betrayed by the Republican leadership, which is why both McCain and Romney were rejected giving us the "Hoping for Change" of O'Bummer......

People don't have to vote Democrat. They just have to stay home.

If against ALL likelihood and reason, REPUBLICANS passed ANY gun control bill, I'd stay home. I'm an independent and have ZERO party loyalty. I don't have to vote for somebody who spits in my face merely because they have a "D" or an "R" after their name.

You two guys are spot on. I intentionally and thoughtfully stayed home last election day. Not so much because I felt I had been betrayed, because, as Deanimator said, I have zero loyalty to any party, but because I truly felt that no candidate who was running was qualified to be president. I truly believed then, and still do, that neither of them deserved my vote, so my vote was to withhold my vote.

I plan to remain at home next election, as well, unless something changes DRAMATICALLY. Neither party represents where I believe the country should be, neither represent me, so why I should vote for either of them?

I've begun to apply this to local elections as well, where I only for issues, such as bond proposals and voter initiatives, and not for candidates because you just know they'll let you down.

In essence, the two party system is crippling our government, and I no longer wish to support that system nor lend credence or validity to it by participating in it

 

[Deanimator]

In essence, the two party system is crippling our government, and I no longer wish to support that system nor lend credence or validity to it by participating in it

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with your original premise.

There ISN'T going to be any new Federal gun control, PRECISELY because gun owners have the option of staying home, something which the Republican know TO A CERTAINTY. If gun owners stay home, Hillary WINS... as likely will other Democrat candidates.

When the AWB sunset was approaching, I emailed my Republic legislators and asked them whether they'd like to win the next election. I suspect a LOT of people sent the same message.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

As long as the GOP maintains control of the Senate and House, even if Hillary is President, nothing will happen.

Based on what just happened with Obama's immigration executive order, its pretty easy to shut those down with a well placed lawsuit.

 

[CoalTrain49]

In essence, the two party system is crippling our government, and I no longer wish to support that system nor lend credence or validity to it by participating in it

Would you rather have a one party system?

Just kidding, I feel the same way. Actually that's what we have. The financial institutions/corporations are running the country and they pipeline in enough money to whichever candidate will support their agenda. This year it's Hillary.

So to get to the OP's question about gun control. I don't really see any substantial legislation at the federal level in the near future. It's way too easy for a do nothing congress to sit on the sidelines and watch states grind up gun owners with AR/AK bans, mag bans, ammo taxes and UBC's. Why would anyone want to jump into a fight if all you do is get kicked in the teeth by the NRA. The NRA doesn't operate at the state level so that's where the big money bets are placed by the AG crowd. Seen it happen here so I know how it works.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

We taught them a lesson in Colorado, the author's of our idiotic gun control package back in 2013 were fired in a recall election, three Senators.

I doubt they will try it again.

 

[Tirod]

Pouting and staying home from elections only allows the anti gunners more traction.

At the Federal level, there are actions that could happen. First - National reciprocity for concealed carry. We are just votes away from that and getting closer every time it's resubmitted.

Secondly, rescinding the NFA on silencers. There was no issue with them in 1934 and the legislation can and is being legally challenged for a number of good reasons.

Third - national awareness the anti gun agendists are fearmongering more than some posters in this thread. They have notched up the rhetoric to another level of extreme ridiculousness - and are shooting themselves in the foot. Their continued over the top attacks are sounding as if they have actually lost touch with sanity - and the millennials DO notice. Not even market hype is going as far as the extremism being belched from some of the anti gun lobby. The have gone so far as to say not only that gun owners need to be shot - to qualify them as users, like pepper spray - but also have their guns confiscated just like Australia.

Let's not forget how the gun owners in NY and CT have responded to AWB and registration attempts. For the most part - they are refusing to cooperate at all. How do you enforce a law when those who suffer from it won't participate? It's been estimated that 75% of the gun owners in both states are refusing to register their "assault weapons," and the NY sheriffs are about 95% dead set against any enforcement.

In Oregon, the background checks law is yet to be enforced, with one county now authorizing its Sherriff to ignore state law.

There is also the It's Not Going To Happen factor - go too far and the People can and will demonstrate who's in charge and who is the employee.

So, just how and where will the Feds and our Congress do anything when WE control the shots? Literally. For all the fearmongering - typical in forums already - the reality is nobody can take your guns away if you don't want them to. For many, they would actually have to be pried from our cold dead hands.

That's not just a cliché for public consumption, and it anyone thinks that they are going to have to turn in their guns, please do. Now. Sit by pouting and staying home from the elections, and with no guns, you don't have to worry about a knock on the door.

Hasn't worked yet.

 

[ljnowell]

Why would you say that? What makes you think the Republicans would lose seats and/or elections if they let a gun law pass?



I mean...seriously? If, in the next legislative session, a UBC bill passed and was signed into law...what are you going to do about it? I guess you could get mad at the Republicans and vote for Democrats to punish the Republicans. I'm sure that will work.



You're not going to do anything. You're going to come online here, and whine and complain that you have to pass background check to buy a gun. And then you're going to go vote for the Republican candidate.



Gotta love that entrenched two-party system, huh?

I won't. I absolutely won't vote for a republican that votes for a gun control bill. If he is willing to do that he is no different than the Democrat. That's why I'm not a republican anymore. They are nothing but dem-Lites.