Well, we all know what’s coming – another of Di Fi’s attempts to resurrect the 1994 AWB, but with more comprehensive and permanent elements this time. Whether she and the rest of her despicable opportunistic ilk are successful in milking the tragedy of dead children will come down to one simple thing: greed. But more on that later. First, let’s look at . . .
How it Can Pass
So, if you are a dedicated anti-gunner, how do you manage to overcome the opposition in the House to a new AWB? Fairly, simple: you do something that’s perceived as relatively innocuous, “reasonable” and has a fair chance of making a “real difference.” What is that exactly? Magazine capacity.
If a bill is introduced that only limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, it probably passes no problem. People who don’t own guns really don’t understand why we are against magazine capacity limitations. They don’t see what the big deal is about asking us to limit our shooting to chunks of 10 rounds and on the flip side, they believe that forcing psycho shooters to cycle through multiple magazines will have a measurable impact on reducing mass killings.
I’m not interested in debating the pros and cons of the issue here. I’ll take it as granted that most of us who visit this site are against any mag cap restrictions. That said, the percentage of the population that owns any gun at all is still slightly less than the percentage that doesn’t, and of those who own guns, the number of folks who really care deeply about magazine capacity limitations is smaller still.
Now, assume mag capacity isn’t enough and you want take this opportunity and grab for more? Well, the next step is to go for a re-visitation of the 1994 AWB. But this time, you strengthen it so that manufacturers can’t simply work around the limitations. I have some ideas as to how this could be done, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to give the opposition any ideas. But even a dim bulb elected official could do a little noodling and come up with a set of guidelines that would be tighter than the Clinton era version.
That approach, though, would likely meet with more opposition than a simple mag capacity limitation would. Whether it passes or not could depend on what the restrictions are on guns already in the market. The smart choice would be to simply grandfather all existing weapons but allow no new ones. There would be no restrictions on transferring (selling) these existing guns other than the standard background check, but private sales would not be legal – you’d have to go through an FFL to transfer.
Of course, the government could go even farther, requiring registration of all existing “assault weapons” much like Massachusetts requires registration of all guns within its borders. That would face even more opposition, but ultimately might pass in the interest of “public safety.”
How it Might Fail
We’re back to greed again. The anti-2A folks have a perfect backdrop against which to play out their security theater of gun restrictions. Thanks to the horror of dead first graders, more people are in the mood for “something to be done” and some sort of new restriction on gun ownership definitely tops that list for a lot of voters. That said, the anti crowd might overplay their hand, prompting enough people to create enough widespread opposition to kill the whole thing.
What provisions would constitute this bridge too far? To start, retroactive restrictions (all high cap mags must be destroyed, all existing guns must be modified to fit the new laws, etc.) will inflame the anger of many. Going further and making existing guns non-transferable hits existing gun owners in the pocket book and would inflame things, too. The simple fact is, we don’t have to convince all that many Congressmen to stop this. A bill could die in committee or, even if it makes it to the floor, enough vocal opposition and amendment additions would be sufficient to water it down or kill it entirely.
As pro-gun people, we probably have to hope that DiFi goes for the most restrictive approach. Sure, its a gamble, but a more “reasonable appearing” AWB has a better chance of passing and enacting new restrictions. Fortunately, like so many on the anti-gun right side, DiFi hates guns in a totally irrational manner. Which means there is a good chance that she’ll get greedy and this bill with go the way of the rest of them.
Most importantly, though, we need to fight this now using the legal methods available to us. Let our congresscrtitters know that we won’t take this lying down and if they abandon us on this, we will abandon them come donation and election time.
Here’s another idea to those whose fingers sometimes get to the keyboard before the thought process is complete: avoid comments about how a new AWB will spark a civil war, people will take up arms or any of that blood in the street nonsense. That only results in people with no existing opinion on guns one way or the other — a significant plurality — coming to the conclusion that “gun people” are every bit as crazy as the anti crowd would have them believe.
Instead, the best place to counter these attempts to limit our constitutional rights is through government and with our friends and acquaintances. Every new person that we bring around to our way of thinking is one more person who will see DiFi and her slimy friends for the opportunistic scum that they are.
Amen, on the “no civil war comments.” In fact, some of the anti folks are trying to put that in my/our mouths. It comes as, “all gun owners are potential domestic terrorists”. Hell, even my own father said that to me once, and that was before Newtown. I calmly explained to him that if ownership of a potential weapon was evidence of terrorism, he might want to get rid of that propane tank, gan of gasoline, and other household dangerous goods.
I think your analysis is correct. I’m hoping for a preposterous piece of legislation that will alienate the House and enough votes in the Senate so the whole scene doesn’t look strictly partisan. But I’m not hopeful. When weak-kneed Senators like Joe Manchin turn toes-up, you know that sanity has just waved bye-bye.
And while we’re at it, I despise magazine limits. So do a lot of my friends, while incongruously carrying 1911s.
I have a penis. Does that mean I am a potential rapist?
Yes. You’re a heternormative, cisexual, chauvinist who hates women. Don’t you read Jezebel?
According to the government, schools, and feminist groups? Yes.
so under that logic, all guys should be punished for being potential rapists?
There are plenty of insane second wavers who believe that all men aren’t potential ones. They are real ones.
So basically California gun laws minus the bullet button for everyone.
Why not include the bullet button ban so it covers all their bases?
I think that’s what he meant – include language to the effect “it’s still a detachable magazine even if you have to use a tool to remove it”.
With a little luck maybe they can also tack on a War on Drugs. It would be so awesome if drugs were outlawed because there would be no more drugs or drug violence in schools or anywhere else. We would sleep safe and our government could point to this “War on Drugs” as a shining example of successful regulation.
Oh.
Wait.
No detachable mags on rifles… so, no more Enfields?
I was trying to be nice. In all seriousness i could see that happening. 10 day wait for purchases, PPT through FFL, 10 rounds for rifles and handguns. Thats alot better than NYC. Not saying its a good thing just what we might be looking at.
Senator Yee in California has vowed to reintroduce his bill to ban the bullet button for Californians. I am sure that DiFi has already incorporated his ideas into her new proposal, which as I understand it will include magazine capacity limits of ten rounds. Now I don’t think she’ll go as far as Yee, whose idea is to ban the evil black rifle, or at worst return to the pre-button era where we had no external mags, only internal mags that had to be reloaded by popping the upper for access.
I don’t think they will vote an an AWB. It’s still too big of a detriment to most office seekers.
I think it will be done as an administrative change. The BATFE will propose a rule change and solicit comments and then ignore all the inputs to decide that Class III weapons should now include semi-automatic rifles. Now, there’s not even any grandfathered weapons, they’re all illegal.
It will be challenged in the courts, but not before some gun owners are made examples and prosecuted and possibly killed. They’ll look for someone like Randy Weaver to make an example of, and in the process of getting him to surrender his weapons, they will execute him and possibly his family. Oh, and of course the dog.
And the change in the administrative interpretation will be challenged, but by the time it gets to the courts, the administration will have so demonized the bitter clingers that John Roberts will be afraid to stand up for the concept of freedom and will require everyone to buy broccoli.
Not sure if they could do something like that on such a large scale without compensating the owners or grandfathering. My understanding is that the BATF doesn’t get to decide what is Class III and what is not. That rests with Congress. Recall that in 1985 when they created the machine gun registry, they grandfathered all weapons in that were properly registered by a certain date. There are a lot more semi-automatics in circulation today than there were machine guns in 1985. If they did extend the definition of Class III, I can’t see how they avoid grandfathering.
Clinton had Street Sweepers reclassified. Everyone had to register and they could keep them as long as they sent their info in by a certain date. I can see that happening since its an administrative decision. If you have them you can keep them but no new ones sold to the public.
This is the most likely nightmare scenario I see
The Democrats had a big showing in November. Hopefully enough realize that one of the best medicines for an ailing GOP would be another AWB. I would guess that the difference between Dems and Reps in November would be wiped out by the midterms if an AWB were pushed too hard, let alone if one were passed.
And don’t we have that fiscal cliff looming? What kind of irresponsible hack gets away with pushing her personal political agenda when there is an economic disaster crumbling out from beneath our toes? First, work on a bill to make a more reasonable approach than across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts.
Well if our California legislature i.e. Leland Yee has Difi’s ear, we might see an over the top bill. That would be a good thing. You know all private sales, gun show loophole, bullet button ban, magazine ban, bulk ammo online ban, mental health screening requirement, long gun registry, mandatory training classes. Heck throw it all in there… Make no grandfather clause, and no financial restitution.
People will look at it and just shake their heads. This also won’t be some time limited ban either, it will be a forever kind of thing.
How much heat the house will get remains to be seen.
There is one thing you missed though.. What happens if the house strikes it down after an overwhelming Senate pass. So Obama does an EO, saying it was the right thing to do? See you are expecting our checks and balances to play out. I don’t know if that would happen or not, but just sayin…
Your suggestion of an EO after a house strike down is possible, but unlikely. If Obama wanted to do this by EO, better to do it before a vote than after. If he does an EO that expressly overrules the wishes of Congress, you can expect some impeachment proceedings to get underway and he can just about forget about getting anything through congress.
He’s smart enough to know that thumbing his nose at Congress that way is political suicide, plus if you thought the Tea Party style movement was bad before, just wait until they get going on such a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
I also doubt that there would be an overwhelming Senate pass. There are a lot of Republicans and some Democrats who know it would be political suicide given the states they represent to pass a highly restrictive bill. You might get a good majority to pass a mag restriction bill, but probably not a full blown AWB one.
Because we all need more laws… Starting with cars, cell phones and alcohol. Don’t forget that all drivers should be licensed.
March 26, 2010 –
Driver in Kentucky crash that killed 11 was on cell phone
Sept 17, 2011 –
Driver Who Killed Four People was Unlicensed
May 30, 2012 –
Drunk driver kills 7, family wants justice
Note: These are actual headlines. All dates shown are the date of killing, not date of publication.
IMO, we should throw them a bone. Ban all magazines 31 rounds or larger. Larger magazines may be fun, but they are pointless for all of our sporting purposes (Because of their lack of reliability), I would take a ban on Beta mags but keep my 30 rounders. We really should make 100 round magazines mandatory, because some dumb ass shooting up an (Insert public place) is going to get a jam sooner or later, 100 maybes is better than 30 definitely in a mass shooting.
That and background checks for private sales.
I object on the grounds that you are already granting that the only legitimate use of guns is for sporting purposes. Read the 2A. That’s not what it’s for.
Interesting piece. Thanks.
They will start small. The 1994 AWB almost verbatim. And wen that doesn’t work they will take more. And when that doesn’t work they will take even more.
One of the most important things you can tell your congressman and senators is how important it is to be able to protect your families against the Adam Lanzas of the world with effective implements of self defense, which is precisely what a high capacity magazine allows you to do. This is THE argument for their existence, and it goes directly for liberals’ emotions when you start talking about being able to protect your family from evil.
The radical dems seem to forget about the riots when they say no reason for hi caps. Katrina,//// during the MLK riots jeeps with 50BMG’s were used around here. Economic collapse,etc etc. If criminals were all neatly packed into 1 or 2 maybe there wouldn’t be a need for 30 rounders, Randy
Background checks for all gun transfers doesn’t strike me as unreasonable.It doesn’t ban a single firearm and it addresses the human side as opposed to the “piece of metal”side of things.Some people shouldn’t have firearms.Convicted felons;illegal aliens;and mentally incompetent individuals are the three main groups.
BTW the old leather bag known as Dianne Feinstein and Chuck”the Schmuck”Schumer both have carry permits.How nice.
It is completely unreasonable. I don’t think we should grant the federal government any more unreasonable power than they already have.
It’s well past time we stop accommodating the growth of federal power and start taking it away instead.
It is unreasonable because it doesn’t result in lower crime rates or prevent mass shootings. Also, it probably leads inevitably to centralized gun registration like we have here in Crazyfornia. And, it allows the gubmint to hold up ALL transfers under the guise of technical difficulties etc. Once you create a government monopoly for legal firearms transactions the Feds will increase the number of flaming hoops we have to jump through to be approved. Here is another thought – IF YOU HAVE TO GET THE GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION IT ISN’T A RIGHT.
DiFi had a ccw whenshe was a lowly city councilwoman. She took it with her to D.C., where she found that it was ineffective. She very publicly turned it in along with her snubby. Still has a post about it on her website. As of a year ago, San Francisco had not one issued CCW.
I agree. I am all for any available information on someone mental health being connected to the NICS. That is common sense gun control and should at least be tried.
Would you make the case that the Federal government should be notified every time anyone holds a garage sale?
It’s not the business of government to interfere with how citizens conduct their business.
I wonder if she will exempt herself from a ban, like she did as major of San Francisco.
She had the only valid pistol permit in the entire city due to her special qualities.
Her “special qualities” were documented death threats from a radical group.
Was she the only person in the entire city with documented death threats?
Probably not.
She took advantage of her political status in order to exercise a right summarily denied to any other citizen at her own behest.
Miller (1939): SCOTUS says the NFA’s ban on unregistered short-barreled shotguns doesn’t violate the 2A because they [said they] had no evidence that a short-barreled shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. While the court didn’t say so explicitly, the opinion suggests that a firearm that does have such a relationship would be protected by the 2A. Especially when they said that “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”.
Heller: 2A guarantees an individual right.
McDonald: 2A is incorporated by the 14th.
Assuming for the moment that a semi-automatic rifle has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” (that is, it’s “of the kind in common use”) and is therefore covered by the 2A, how is any AWB, state or federal, Constitutional?
Apropos to imminent AWB legislation:
FML. I failed to act promptly, and Golden State Tactical is now completely sold out of both stripped and complete lower receivers, and I imagine that’s the case pretty much everywhere. I’m screwed. So angry at myself right now.
If anyone has a California source with off-list lower receivers in stock, let me know.
Update: Just ordered two Kaiser Defense stripped lowers from Ten Percent Firearms. Kaiser gets good reviews, and apparently is the manufacturer for the very popular Spike’s line of receivers.
After my order, they have 18 Kaiser KR-5 lowers in stock at $150 each.
Since compromise is about both sides getting something they want, whould you make a deal? Say a large magazine ban, in exchange for national unrestricted constitutional carry? That would limit the number of rounds the crazy can get off before all of the legally armed citizens can respond. If I could open carry anywhere, I’d probably go with a 1911 anyway.
For a couple decades now, I’ve advocated a constitutional amendment that says if Congress wants to pass a certain law, they have to repeal two present ones first.
Why not go all in with a complete repeal of the 2A? The 4A is more or less dead so why not 2A then move onto the 1A. It’s all in the name of protecting the children. Just think of how wonderful everything would be if all us nut jobs could be disarmed, searched and silenced all at once.
Of course it would have to be ratified by 3/4’s of the states, but that’s nothing a few billion can’t buy.
/sarc
That’ll likely have to wait until President-for-Life Obomber’s third term.
The AWB will PASS! All of us WILL give up all of our guns!
How you might ask? Simply because it will be the reasonable result of a sequence of reasonable conclusions that reasonable people come to. After all we want to be reasonable in our response to this latest assault on our 2A rights, don’t we? No reasonable person would be willing to accept even one innocent person being killed at the cost of giving up some personal liberty would they? MORONS! THE CIVIL WAR HAS ALREADY STARTED! They won’t start shooting at us as long as we keep telling them we’ll give up without a fight! Tell them now you are willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to keep your guns or die in your doorway later when they decide to stop being so reasonable about it and come and take them!
Shut up. You’re the kind of person that makes us look bad. That is, if you are indeed a gun owner and not an anti-gun troll.
Shut up – now there’s a very reasoned response.
Its sounds to me like the anti’s have shut you up already.
Perhaps I should have added the /sarc tag to my post but just what did I say that makes me look so bad? If Di Fi gets her way they will come for our guns. What will you do then?
take it easy there highspeed. its not time to pick up a rifle yet.
the solution should always begin and end non-violent, through political and passive, non-violent resistance means. force is a absolute last resort when all options have been exhausted.
like it or not, change will happen, and its not the change the statist followers think; life is about to get a lot more simple 😉
Like I told JoeBob, I guess I should have inserted a /sarc tag somewhere in my post. My point was you cant refute unreasonable people with reasonable arguments. Rational arguments won’t win over irrational people. The vocal minority’s visceral fear and loathing of guns transcends all normal means of rebuttal. We need to load up a couple thousand buses with pro-gunners and have a little 2A rally around the reflecting pool in DC. That would be a good first step.
We need to get our own petiition going on the white house website. We are starting to look like we are falling apart. I belive we can out sign any liberal nini anyday!
There are quite a few up there righht now that are pro-gun. Go sign them.
Oh, what a day to get a decent gun-sized legal settlement payout in the mail. I could feel an AR-shaped hole burning through my pocket within the first 30 seconds of opening the envelope.
My guess is that detestable DiFi will go over the top with restrictions in her latest and greatest AWB. She has stated many times in the past that she wants all semi-autos made illegal retroactively. This woman is a rabid Crazyfornia style anti-gun zealot. She can’t restrain her irrational exuberance for gun control and she now feels emboldened by recent events. She will go for the whole kit and caboodle this time which will hopefully be her undoing.
I agree that we should use our vote as leverage, but really, who else are we going to vote for? I want someone who supports 2A, but I’m not going to switch sides just over that issue and we basically only have 2 choices.
Phil,
Although my side is on the right side of this debate as a whole fix them in the primary. Encourage someone who views you do agree with that is also pro gun to run against the current guy the is anti gun. If you can’t vote for the other party why not replace you current guy with someone pro 2a.
Thanks
Robert
Did anyone challenge the 1994 ban on Constitutional grounds? I’m thinking they did and lost but hoping they did not because if no one has, fire up the 2nd Amendment Foundation and NRA and shove the 2nd amendment down their throats. That may be what we need, a Supreme Court Decision in our favor would kill this forever and I would welcome that.
At that time there had not been a supreme court decision that gun ownership is an individual right. We now have that ruling. What, if any effect that will have remains to be seen.
Then, I’m of the mind that I won’t mind if they implement a ban because we have a pro gun Supreme Court now that can rule that this is unconstitutional and end this permanently. In fact, I would love it if that happens because it will pretty much guarantee our rights for us and future generations.
Compromise is not our friend. What we have already IS the compromise. Anything else is somewhere between where we are today, and total confiscation. I want to be on the other side of the curve!
+1
Bans of any kind of semi-auto, including mag capacity bans violate the Heller decision. Such mags and rifles are very common, therefore a ban is impermissible.
Not that truth is a defense in the empire of lies.
Which is why it’s so important to support the SAF and Alan Gura. If they pass some piece of **** it needs to be challenged in court immediately.
Sign this petition for your voice to be heard by POTUS.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/please-sign-pro-gun-whitehouse-gov-petition-share-tweet-and-email/
I say use their ignorance of firearms against them.
Ban all evil-looking black guns.
Ban all “clips” of whatever type that makes them happy. Only my Garand takes clips anyway.
Ban bayonets on AR-15s.
Or use ignorant Bill O’Reilly as a shining example and just ban all “AK-15s”
Ban all the AK-15s!!! It’s for the children!!!
I best hang on to my SKS was thinking of selling.I can only imagine the price gouging on 10 rd. mags.
all i see is a powder keg ready to explode. Only question is who is going to be one thats dumb enough to set it off.
Why do the antis not understand that the minute guns go away is the minute that all the rights are taken away? Are they just to dumb to realize or to busy taking advantage of the poor kids and families that were in the tragedy? [sarc] they can ban clips I don’t have a gun that uses them. [sarcoff] when will they realize that banning stuff doesn’t help? Drugs are illegal but obviously they are still out there.
From my experience with anti they want all our rights to go away so they can work society into the utopia they think they can force it into becoming. The problem is there idea’s go against human nature and fail every-time someone is dump enough to try them.
Thanks
Robert
I say don’t give ’em an f’n inch.
My main worry is they will limit or gain outrageous control over the consumables needed for firearms.
If you think about it it would preclude needing to ban any weapon.
You have to fight any infringement, otherwise in 100 years you will look like the UK. I am sure your politicians would love that but the people?
I read somewhere a bit of truth that rings to this day. If we *legal* gun owners were as batshit shoot em up crazy as the antis pretend we are, then there would be no antis left in the world.
Wonder what DiFi would feel if her body guards were un armed and had altered guns or small cap mags? Shes clueless… AND, more importantly, Ill never give my guns up to anyone, ever. I will never register my long guns to anyone ever, and I will never alter my guns to receive low cap mags, ever. That is where we move from Democracy to communism/ totalitarianism. Not gonna happen. As a matter of fact, Im buying more.
If a person is too fat, should we ban spoons?
If a person writes threatening letters, should we take away their pencils?
If a person is addicted to gambling, lets ban money.
Comments are closed.