User Panel
We were in a much worse situation in 2008 than we are now.
They actually won the POTUS with a Marxist intellectual who was a god-like messiah to millions. They had a 60 seat majority in the Senate until Ted Kennedy finally stopped drinking. They had a much larger majority in the House. SCOTUS was even more unreliable than it is now. They used all their political capital on Obama Care. Will they use all their political capital on gun control now? Their window is very narrow. They won the country in 2008. In 2020, they stole it. If they get rid of the filibuster then all bets are off. I don't *think* they will be able to, but we are depending on Senators like Manchin.. ETA- 2009 |
|
they have a plan on this. but they have more work to do yet, setting all of us up as terrorists and dangerous people.
|
|
Unless some battleground state D senator has a heart attack live on CSpan and is replaced by an R, I would expect gun control. Even if that happens, I would still expect executive orders on gun control.
Kharn |
|
Kumala's going to ban the import of Ar15's, we'll only be able to buy domestic.
|
|
Quoted: America FirstTM The CATO Institute did a study back in the 90s that showed every import ban was supported by American Firearns Manufacturers and they profited and benefited from it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Biden just screwed over a pipefitters union following through on his promise to kill Keystone. He is going to screw us on guns. What form that takes is unknown at this time but it is going to happen. The biggest concern would be if he banned all imports of guns and ammo, only American made going forward. A stroke of a pen and he can do that. The CATO Institute did a study back in the 90s that showed every import ban was supported by American Firearns Manufacturers and they profited and benefited from it. Green Mountain barrel probably snuck a couple hookers with coke into the Bush administration to screw us on former MG barrels (lots of people forget that one, and blame Obama). The Democrata had far, far stronger majorities in 2009 and didn't touch guns until Sandy Hook. I think they'll play EO games on imports, basically the next time Putin farts we'll loose Russian ammo. I think they'll roll gun control a little slow unless they get a big juicy shooting. By my math they may or may not have enough votes for a '94 style ban in the house. It is VERY close, down to one or two that haven't gone on the record against one, but haven't come out in favor either in purple districts. Be really, really greatful they got hammered in house seats. BLM and defund the police gave us a nice present there. |
|
Biden won't just come after guns. Armor, helmets, NV, thermal, and anything military related in civilian hands will be on the list.
|
|
Quoted: they have a plan on this. but they have more work to do yet, setting all of us up as terrorists and dangerous people. View Quote This I can see happening. "The AR15 is the weapon of choice among (fill in the current narrative)." They will try to build up hate and distrust for whatever group they need to cancel and tie AR15 ownership to that group. Mass shootings will only play into that narrative. I could see that delaying any legislation until summer. It does take time for propaganda to do its thing. |
|
Quoted: Look at what the commie has done so far with EO's........the only hope is the filibuster rules are not repealed and the Senate can stop him because he will sign the most draconian anti gun bill(s) we have ever seen if given the chance. Ammo restrictions/prohibitions will be high on their list also. Thanks democrats and dumbass nevertrumpers. View Quote You're assuming enough senators are on our side. They will be just as happy to punish us as to punish Trump. The impeachment trial should give some clues as to who is on our side. |
|
|
With the shit they have planned, they MUST disarm us first.
And since Jan 6th, I bet there is a handful of the Cuck Old Party who are willing to sign onto their anti-2A laws, because they discovered The Right is fed up with their fecklessness, too. Keystone Pipeline. 1776 Project. Just like Trump, Xiden is going down the line, or at least his staff is going down the list of promises, checking them off as they destroy the country, while they get rich. |
|
Quoted: I don't know about victim snowflakes, but Chicken Littles at least. I can't remember how many times I walked into a gun store during 2008-2016 and heard "buy it before Obama bans it!" ?? View Quote If you didn't that administration was a threat, you were stupid. This one is worse. A lot worse. |
|
Quoted: We all know that everyone is worried about impending gun control with the Biden administration. As a result, everyone is buying everything, you can’t find anything, and anything you can find is overpriced. But in the scenario that he doesn’t, due to considerations of political fallout or sowing discord, how long would you say before supply and prices to normal? Or do you think that will never happen as long as he is president due to lack of trust in him? View Quote Reassured the leftists are coming for the 2A because they know you cant subjugate armed peasants. |
|
|
At least 4 - 8 years. Things might settle down when he's out of office. If his replacement isn't anti gun.
|
|
Quoted: Biden won't just come after guns. Armor, helmets, NV, thermal, and anything military related in civilian hands will be on the list. View Quote His goons will have to pry my sharpened stick out of my cold dead hands... When Sharpened Sticks are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Sharpened Sticks!! |
|
Quoted: Remember when everyone said Obama was coming for your guns? Remember the panic of 2008-2009? Remember post Sandy Hook? Gun owners are whiney little victim snowflakes just like the left. View Quote I remember not being worried through all of that (about gun control, at least). This is different. Different time, Dems have a different agenda and are playing by different rules. |
|
Quoted: Yup, and with a few EOs , orders to gov agencies.. ( atf, epa, drmo ) he can REALLY fuck gun owners hard, without congress / Senate ruling on anything. 1. Reclassification ar pistols as nfa. 2. Ban ammo / gun / gun parts imports. ( huge % of all ammo right there, maybe 50% ) 3. Ban lead ammo from ranges, hunting, etc. New expensive range regs, 4. Rule xm193 / xm855 as ap..and ban sale posession of it. ( 50% of ar ammo right there ) 5. Amounts of ammo you can store / storage rules. 6. New lead / ammo manufacture regs.. 7. New ammo shipping regs. 8. Order drmo to destroy once fired mil brass. You get the idea. A few phone calls. A few EOs and were fucked with permanent high ammo prices basically over night. China import ammo was banned via EO.. and China our biggest trade partner.. you dont think they wont ban pmc, wolf, ppu, zqi, fiocchi, seller and ballot, golden bear,golden tiger, armscor, magtech, aguila, and the other ammo imports, imported surplus ammo, etc. just to hurt gun owners , via high prices and shortages ? One EO and it's done. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Yup, and with a few EOs , orders to gov agencies.. ( atf, epa, drmo ) he can REALLY fuck gun owners hard, without congress / Senate ruling on anything. 1. Reclassification ar pistols as nfa. 2. Ban ammo / gun / gun parts imports. ( huge % of all ammo right there, maybe 50% ) 3. Ban lead ammo from ranges, hunting, etc. New expensive range regs, 4. Rule xm193 / xm855 as ap..and ban sale posession of it. ( 50% of ar ammo right there ) 5. Amounts of ammo you can store / storage rules. 6. New lead / ammo manufacture regs.. 7. New ammo shipping regs. 8. Order drmo to destroy once fired mil brass. You get the idea. A few phone calls. A few EOs and were fucked with permanent high ammo prices basically over night. China import ammo was banned via EO.. and China our biggest trade partner.. you dont think they wont ban pmc, wolf, ppu, zqi, fiocchi, seller and ballot, golden bear,golden tiger, armscor, magtech, aguila, and the other ammo imports, imported surplus ammo, etc. just to hurt gun owners , via high prices and shortages ? One EO and it's done. Domestic firearms manufacturing has been a major beneficiary of gun control. - CATO Institute The same article adds that a bill introduced in Congress three months prior "would have limited foreign imports severely," referring to S-1975, which targeted military surplus weapons. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Thomas Dodd (DConn.), whose state was home to several firearms manufacturers including Winchester, Remington, Marlin Firearms, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Pratt & Whitney Machine Tool, and Colt. According to the Wall Street Journal's Nov. 27, 1963 article, "Seven large firearms manufacturers are known to have cooperated with Sen. Dodd's subcommittee in drawing up its proposed bill," with Harmon Williams, a vice president of Browning Arms, declaring, "We feel Sen. Dodd's bill is a good one." |
|
|
Quoted: Biden will come after guns. But he's no fool and will wait for when the optics are right. A school or workplace shooting in a heavily Democrat gun controlled area where the people aren't able to defend themselves will be it. The man has been in politics for 40 years, he's no fool and he understands how to play the PR game and sway public opinion. View Quote He doesn't seem worried about public opinion. He knows the media will provide cover. If he knew how to play PR games there wouldn't be video of him bragging about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor. He just doesn't have to worry about it, he lives in a world where media and tech will censor the breaking story about his son's laptop and corruption. |
|
Quoted: If you didn't that administration was a threat, you were stupid. This one is worse. A lot worse. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I don't know about victim snowflakes, but Chicken Littles at least. I can't remember how many times I walked into a gun store during 2008-2016 and heard "buy it before Obama bans it!" ?? If you didn't that administration was a threat, you were stupid. This one is worse. A lot worse. True. Plus. It's a totally new world from even 4 years ago, much less 12 years ago. 2008 was puppies and unicorns, as was 20q6... compared to the rabid politically targeted insane agendas and bullshit that infests everything today. |
|
Quoted: The Left has been very different the past few years. I won't be shocked to see them eliminate the need for 60 votes in the senate and attempt to force gun control on a simple majority vote. It's something that could be fought in the courts for quite some time. View Quote The 60 vote thing is just senate rules which the senate can change at will. Funny how they so love their rules and don't care about the constitution. |
|
It took about 2.5 years for things to get back to normal after Sandy Hook. Obama could have pushed gun control harder, but he didn't out of fear of losing additional seats in the House.
At this point, enough Democrats are wanting guns that it may not be as popular a position as many would assume. But who knows? I guess we'll find out. |
|
Quoted: Domestic manufacturers loved GCA 68. Mail order cheap milsurp stood in their way to sell Model 70s/700s. Green Mountain barrel probably snuck a couple hookers with coke into the Bush administration to screw us on former MG barrels (lots of people forget that one, and blame Obama). The Democrata had far, far stronger majorities in 2009 and didn't touch guns until Sandy Hook. I think they'll play EO games on imports, basically the next time Putin farts we'll loose Russian ammo. I think they'll roll gun control a little slow unless they get a big juicy shooting. By my math they may or may not have enough votes for a '94 style ban in the house. It is VERY close, down to one or two that haven't gone on the record against one, but haven't come out in favor either in purple districts. Be really, really greatful they got hammered in house seats. BLM and defund the police gave us a nice present there. View Quote I don't trust the GOP. They helped get the AWB passed back then. Here is the PDF of the final engrossed bill that was HR 3355. Additionally, the fight between Republicans and Democrats was a dog and pony show. The bill was introduced in the House and there was only a Voice Vote so no official record was kept. From there, it went to the Senate and they had a recorded vote for it before it was sent back to the House for revision again. The first recorded vote for the AWB in the Senate had a 95% Yea vote for the bill (which had the AWB in it). You can read the bill as it was when it passed the Senate the first go around by clicking here. It clearly has the AWB in it and in the bill it is listed under the following: Click To View Spoiler TITLE XLV--SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS SEC. 4501. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the 'Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act'. SEC. 4502. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS. (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: '(s) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.'. (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: '(29) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means-- '(A) any of the firearms, or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms, known as-- '(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); '(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; '(iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70); '(iv) Colt AR-15; '(v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; '(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; '(vii) Steyr AUG; '(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and '(ix) any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; '(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- '(i) a folding or telescoping stock; '(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; '(iii) a bayonet mount; '(iv) a flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle; and '(v) a grenade launcher; '(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- '(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; '(ii) a barrel having a threaded muzzle; '(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; '(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and '(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and '(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- '(i) a folding or telescoping stock; '(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; '(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and '(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine. (c) PENALTIES- (1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(s)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 'or (q) of section 922' and inserting '(q), or (s) of section 922'. (2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting ', or semiautomatic assault weapon' after 'short-barreled shotgun,'. (d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 'The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of this section shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'. SEC. 4503. EXEMPTION FOR FIREARMS LAWFULLY POSSESSED PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT. Section 922(s) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 4502(a), is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph: '(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer or possession of any firearm that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of this subsection.'. SEC. 4504. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS. Section 922 of title 18, as amended by section 4503, is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph: '(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- '(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993; '(B) any firearm that-- '(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; '(ii) is an unserviceable firearm; or '(iii) is an antique firearm; '(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or '(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.'. SEC. 4505. EXEMPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL USE. Section 922(s) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 4504, is amended by adding the following paragraph: '(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- '(A) the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; or '(B) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any firearm by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary, or for exportation.'. SEC. 4506. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED RESTRICTIONS. (a) OFFENSE- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 4505, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: '(t)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, ship, or deliver an assault weapon to a person who does not fill out a form 4473 in connection with the purchase of the assault weapon. '(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, possess, or accept delivery of an assault weapon unless the person has filled out a form 4473 in connection with the purchase of the assault weapon. '(3) If a person purchases an assault weapon from anyone other than a licensed dealer, both the purchaser and the seller shall maintain a record of the sale on the seller's original copy of form 4473. '(4) An owner of an assault weapon on the effective date of this subsection who requires retention of form 4473 under this subsection shall, within 90 days after publication of regulations by the Secretary under paragraph (5), request a copy of form 4473 from a licensed dealer in accordance with those regulations. '(5) The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, prescribe regulations for the request and delivery of form 4473 under paragraph (4).'. (b) PENALTY- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: '(i) A person who knowingly violates section 922(t) shall be fined not more than $1,000 (in accordance with section 3571(e)), imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.'. (c) DISABILITY- Section 922(g)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 'or a violation of section 922(t)' before the semicolon at the end. SEC. 4507. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES. (a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 4506, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: '(u)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device. '(2) This subsection does not apply to-- '(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency of the United States or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; '(B) the lawful transfer or lawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of this subsection; or '(C) the transfer or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'. (b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 4502(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: '(30) The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device'-- '(A) means-- '(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and '(ii) any combination of parts from which a device described in clause (i) can be assembled; but '(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'. (c) LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES TREATED AS FIREARMS- Section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence-- (1) by striking 'or (D) any destructive device.'; and (2) by inserting '(D) any destructive device; or (E) any large capacity ammunition feeding device.'. (d) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 4502(c), is amended by striking 'or (s)' and inserting '(s), or (u)'. (e) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 4502(d), is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 'A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'. SEC. 4508. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL. (a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this title and the amendments made by this title, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 78 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (b) REPORT- Not later than 8 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a). SEC. 4509. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title and the amendments made by this title-- (1) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date. SEC. 4510. APPENDIX A TO SECTION 922 OF TITLE 18. Section 922 of title 18, United States code, is amended by adding at the end the following appendix: 'APPENDIX A Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire Shotguns--Autoloaders Shotguns--Slide Actions Shotguns--Over/Unders Shotguns--Side by Sides Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots TITLE XLVI--RECREATIONAL HUNTING SAFETY SEC. 4601. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the 'Recreational Hunting Safety and Preservation Act of 1993'. SEC. 4602. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) recreational hunting, when carried out pursuant to law (as implemented by the regulations of Federal and State wildlife management agencies) is a necessary and beneficial element in the proper conservation and management of healthy, abundant, and biologically diverse wildlife resources; (2) recreational hunters (because of a generally demonstrated concern with the conservation of wildlife resources and preservation of habitat necessary for the breeding and maintenance of healthy wildlife populations, and through a familiarity with the resources gained from experience in the field) are a valuable asset in ensuring enlightened public input into decisions regarding management and maintenance programs for wildlife resources and habitat; (3)(A) recreational hunting supports industries highly significant to the national economy through sales in interstate commerce of sporting goods; and (B) the Federal excise taxes imposed on the sales provide a major source of funding for vital programs of wildlife conservation and management; (4) various persons are engaging in (and have announced an intent to continue to engage in) a variety of disruptive activities with the premeditated purpose of preventing and interfering with the conduct of lawful recreational hunting on Federal lands, which activities-- (A) place both recreational hunters and the disruptive persons in imminent jeopardy of grave physical injury or death; (B) disrupt the peaceful, lawful, and prudent conduct of wildlife population and habitat management programs by Federal and State wildlife management agencies; and (C) ultimately may alter the planned program objectives, resulting in-- (i) undesirable patterns of activity within populations of wildlife; (ii) the endangerment of the future viability of wildlife species; and (iii) damage to habitat values; (5) Federal lands comprise important wildlife habitat resources that-- (A) support many large, diverse, and vital populations of wildlife; and (B) offer significant opportunities for legal recreational hunting as an important management tool to ensure the future viability of the wildlife populations; (6) it is the right of citizens of the United States freely to enjoy lawful recreational hunting on Federal lands in accordance with regulations promulgated by Federal and State wildlife management agencies; and (7) in many instances under current law, vagueness and ambiguity exist regarding the application of State laws and enforcement activities relating to-- (A) the safety of hunters; and (B) the legal rights of recreational hunters to participate peacefully in lawful hunts on Federal lands. SEC. 4603. DEFINITIONS. As used in this title: (1) FEDERAL LANDS- The term 'Federal lands' means-- (A) national forests; (B) public lands; (C) national parks; and (D) wildlife refuges. (2) LAWFUL HUNT- The term 'lawful hunt' means an occasion when an individual is engaged in the taking or harvesting (or attempted taking or harvesting) through a legal means and during a specified legal season of a wildlife or fish, on Federal lands, which activity-- (A)(i) is authorized by or licensed under the law of the State in which it takes place; or (ii) is regulated by game or fishing seasons established by the State in which it takes place; (B) is not prohibited by a law of the United States; and (C) does not infringe upon a right of an owner of private property. (3) NATIONAL FOREST- The term 'national forest' means lands included in the National Forest System (as defined in section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))). (4) NATIONAL PARK- The term 'national park' means lands and waters included in the national park system (as defined in section 2(a) of the Act entitled 'An Act to facilitate the management of the National Park System and miscellaneous areas administered in connection with that system, and for other purposes', approved August 8, 1953 (16 U.S.C. 1c(a))). (5) PUBLIC LANDS- The term 'public lands' has the same meaning as is provided in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)). (6) SECRETARY- The term 'Secretary' means-- (A) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to national forests; and (B) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to-- (i) public lands; (ii) national parks; and (iii) wildlife refuges. (7) WILDLIFE REFUGE- The term 'wildlife refuge' means lands and waters included in the National Wildlife Refuge System (as established by section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd)). SEC. 4604. OBSTRUCTION OF A LAWFUL HUNT. (a) VIOLATION- It is unlawful for a person knowingly and with the intent of obstructing, impeding, or interfering with a lawful hunt by an individual to-- (1) obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with a lawful hunt by an individual; (2) engage in activities that prevent or impede the reasonable and usual means of access by those individuals who intend to participate in a lawful hunt, whether the activities occur on Federal lands or upon a public or private road, highway, path, trail, or other normal route of access to Federal lands; (3) take or abuse property, equipment, or hunting dogs being used in conjunction with a lawful hunt; or (4) enter onto Federal lands or travel in interstate commerce to further-- (A) a scheme or effort to obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with a lawful hunt; or (B) the efforts of another person to obstruct, impede, or interfere with a lawful hunt. (b) MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS- The Secretary may consider participation by a person in more than one of the activities described in this section to constitute multiple violations. SEC. 4605. CIVIL PENALTIES. (a) IN GENERAL- A person who engages in an activity described in section 4604 shall be assessed a civil penalty of not less than $500, and not more than $5,000, for each violation. (b) VIOLATION INVOLVING FORCE OR VIOLENCE- Upon a determination by a court that the activity involved the use of force or violence, or the threatened use of force or violence, against the person or property of another person, a person who engages in an activity described in section 4604 shall be assessed a civil penalty of not less than $1,000, and not more than $10,000, for each violation. (c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PENALTIES- The penalties established by this section shall be in addition to other criminal or civil penalties that may be levied against the person as a result of an activity in violation of section 4604. (d) PROCEDURE- (1) COMPLAINTS FROM GOVERNMENT AGENTS- Upon receipt of a written complaint from an officer, employee, or agent of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or other Federal agency that a person violated section 4604, the Secretary shall-- (A) forward the complaint to the United States Attorney for the Federal judicial district in which the violation is alleged to have occurred; and (B) request the Attorney General of the United States to institute a civil action for the imposition and collection of the civil penalty specified in subsection (a) or (b). (2) COMPLAINTS FROM INDIVIDUALS- Upon receipt of a sworn affidavit from an individual and a determination by the Secretary that the statement contains sufficient factual data to create a reasonable belief that a violation of section 4604 has occurred, the Secretary shall-- (A) forward a complaint to the United States Attorney for the Federal judicial district in which the violation is alleged to have occurred; and (B) request the Attorney General of the United States to institute a civil action for the imposition and collection of the civil penalty specified in subsection (a) or (b). (e) USE OF PENALTY MONEY COLLECTED- After deduction of costs attributable to collection, money collected from penalties shall be-- (1) deposited into the trust fund established pursuant to the Act entitled 'An Act to provide that the United States shall aid the States in wildlife-restoration projects, and for other purposes', approved September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669) (commonly known as the 'Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act'), to support the activities authorized by such Act and undertaken by State wildlife management agencies; or (2) used in such other manner as the Secretary determines will enhance the funding and implementation of-- (A) the North American Waterfowl Management Plan signed by the Secretary of the Interior and the Minister of Environment for Canada in May 1986; or (B) a similar program that the Secretary determines will enhance wildlife management-- (i) on Federal lands; or (ii) on private or State-owned lands when the efforts will also provide a benefit to wildlife management objectives on Federal lands. SEC. 4606. OTHER RELIEF. (a) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- Injunctive relief against a violation of section 4604 may be sought by-- (1) the head of a State agency with jurisdiction over fish or wildlife management; (2) the Attorney General of the United States; or (3) any person who is or would be adversely affected by the violation, or a hunting or sportsman's organization to which the person belongs. (b) DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES- Any person who is or would be adversely affected by a violation of section 4604, or a hunting or sportsman's organization to which the person belongs, may bring a civil action to recover-- (1) actual and punitive damages; and (2) reasonable attorney's fees. Yup, the majority of Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of it. It was then sent back to the House for revision. While there, the House Republicans didn't agree. It went back to the Senate and just like the House Republicans. The Senate Republicans didn't agree with all the way the bill was. The bill passed the Senate for the final time and was engrossed and sent to the President for signature. You can actually look up the entire legislative history of HR 3355 here. If Senate Republicans originally didn't vote in favor of the bill. I would have further faith in the Party. But my honest opinion then and now is that the Republicans don't give a shit about gun rights. If they did then why did the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted in favor of HR 3355 the first time it was in the Senate? |
|
Quoted: He doesn't seem worried about public opinion. He knows the media will provide cover. If he knew how to play PR games there wouldn't be video of him bragging about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor. He just doesn't have to worry about it, he lives in a world where media and tech will censor the breaking story about his son's laptop and corruption. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Remember when everyone said Obama was coming for your guns? Remember the panic of 2008-2009? Remember post Sandy Hook? Gun owners are whiney little victim snowflakes just like the left. View Quote Attached File Join date, post count, underscore. Alinsky Rule 5 in action. Hello there, Shareblue. |
|
Quoted: There were rumors that Obama complained about Biden being an idiot. Obama hated guns but may have decided that he wasn't going to get burned like Clinton by making a run at guns, having Congress flipped and be out of business passing any other new legislation. I don't know that Biden's that sharp. He might be better off waiting until the second half of his term to go for a new AWB and not risk flipping Congress, but I think he'll do something immediately. This is a big issue for the California and NYC/Boston/DC urban liberals and I don't think Biden and Harris realize the shit storm they'll kick off with trying with this. Registering every AR and magazine? These are liberal city people who have no idea how many ARs are out there and have probably been told only "super owners" have ARs "not regular hunters" Have you all really Have you all really View Quote |
|
Quoted: There were rumors that Obama complained about Biden being an idiot. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Obama clearly wasn't rooting for Biden in the primary. I think it was obvious that Harris was his choice, hence the establishment choice, and also why the really, really hate Tulsi. And why Harris ended up on the ticket as VP. Quoted: Obama hated guns but may have decided that he wasn't going to get burned like Clinton by making a run at guns, having Congress flipped and be out of business passing any other new legislation. I didn't expect him to go after guns, Reid and Senate Dems had other priorities. ACA became Obama's big thing, along with banking "reform", but those were really more of interest to the Party (well, the banking thing was in his lane). Obama advanced the Party priorities, not his. Even his initial healthcare talk was a response to Clinton. Obama was very much an urban policy guy, and he was pushing that in his second term using methods that didn't require Congress. Gun control is one element of the urban policy thing. Not a major part, but a part. Obama was very anti gun (ask John Lott), but he advanced the Party priorities. But that was a different era, and the priorities are different. As well as their political approach, which no longer is willing to compromise. |
|
Quoted:
But my honest opinion then and now is that the Republicans don't give a shit about gun rights. That's a fact. A little pandering/lip service about the 2nd,and Republicans have the gun owner vote locked up. Hell,even if they pass gun control,they have the gun owner vote locked up. |
|
|
Quoted: Remember when everyone said Obama was coming for your guns? Remember the panic of 2008-2009? Remember post Sandy Hook? Gun owners are whiney little victim snowflakes just like the left. View Quote Remember the acts PASSED in 1990, 1993 & 1994? *I* sure as fuck remember. If you can't remember, then you're too fucking stupid to own a gun. You decide which one you are. |
|
Considering that they no longer have to worry about losing elections because of passing gun bans, the chance of Xiden doing nothing is 0%.
|
|
Quoted: If Senate Republicans originally didn't vote in favor of the bill. I would have further faith in the Party. But my honest opinion then and now is that the Republicans don't give a shit about gun rights. If they did then why did the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted in favor of HR 3355 the first time it was in the Senate? View Quote 94 was a different time. Not much support for EBRs back then. If you recall they added a "protected firearms" list and also made the law so it would expire in 10 years. They did this to get extra votes. The level of public support for EBRs (and CCW) has increased greatly since then, and also among Republicans in Congress. That said they don't have to flip many to get their way. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: But my honest opinion then and now is that the Republicans don't give a shit about gun rights. That's a fact. A little pandering/lip service about the 2nd,and Republicans have the gun owner vote locked up. Hell,even if they pass gun control,they have the gun owner vote locked up. View Quote Well, at least now you can enjoy Biden. |
|
Bacerra is the one that will be spearheading the attack. He already has the California game plan to follow. We were just the testing grounds. Instead of supporting the 2A in California people just attacked Californians. Trust me it’s fucked up and you guys are not gunna like what’s coming. They will go for a complete ban and settle for a compromise that is still unbearable.
|
|
If He Walks It Like He Talks It, This is Good News
Joe Biden Undercuts Democrats by Renewing Opposition to Ditching Filibuster View Quote Even before Biden weighed in to renew his opposition, the push to abandon the filibuster had exposed internal tensions among Democrats. The party, which finds itself in control of Congress and the presidency for the first time since 2008, has struggled to articulate not only its governing agenda but the means through how that agenda will be executed. View Quote While that debate has occurred in the open, behind the scenes questions have lingered over whether Democrats actually have the votes to move forward with jettisoning the filibuster. With only 50 seats in the chamber, Democrats would need their entire conference to support any major change to the Senate rules. In recent weeks, however, that cohesion has not been found. Although the majority of the Democrat conference likely supports getting rid of the filibuster, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has refused to back the idea. Manchin, a moderate-to-conservative Democrat representing a strongly Republican state, has only reasserted that opposition in recent weeks. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Well, at least now you can enjoy Biden. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But my honest opinion then and now is that the Republicans don't give a shit about gun rights. That's a fact. A little pandering/lip service about the 2nd,and Republicans have the gun owner vote locked up. Hell,even if they pass gun control,they have the gun owner vote locked up. Well, at least now you can enjoy Biden. I'm a pro 2nd guy,why would I enjoy biden? Here's a hint-I don't enjoy ANYONE that infringes on the 2nd. Doesn't matter what letter is after their name. |
|
|
Oh, return to normal? Sure, if Trump was still President but they are talking about banning high capacity magazines, "assault rifles", taxes on ammunition and guns. Prices will not return to normal until Republicans have a majority in the House or Senate (hopefully in 2 years) so we can stop these possible infringements. THAT IS THE REALITY!!
|
|
Quoted: Oh, return to normal? Sure, if Trump was still President but they are talking about banning high capacity magazines, "assault rifles", taxes on ammunition and guns. Prices will not return to normal until Republicans have a majority in the House or Senate (hopefully in 2 years) so we can stop these possible infringements. THAT IS THE REALITY!! View Quote Yeah,and if anything does get passed,we can count on the Republicans to get rid of it when they are back in power. |
|
Quoted: Bacerra is the one that will be spearheading the attack. He already has the California game plan to follow. We were just the testing grounds. Instead of supporting the 2A in California people just attacked Californians. Trust me it’s fucked up and you guys are not gunna like what’s coming. They will go for a complete ban and settle for a compromise that is still unbearable. View Quote and with harris on deck, youre dead right |
|
Quoted: You are naive. Obama did go after guns but had a Republican house to block it. Things are also much worse now. There is no doubt biden will come after guns. None. The only question is how bad and how much can he get passed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Remember when everyone said Obama was coming for your guns? Remember the panic of 2008-2009? Remember post Sandy Hook? Gun owners are whiney little victim snowflakes just like the left. You are naive. Obama did go after guns but had a Republican house to block it. Things are also much worse now. There is no doubt biden will come after guns. None. The only question is how bad and how much can he get passed. Exactly. Obama as a state senator signed on to gun control in Il. He always said he wanted gun control. He talked about conservatives "clinging to their guns and religion". He talked after Sandy Hook about wanting gun control. After it didn't pass the Senate, the same day he (with a couple Sandy Hook families), came out of the White House to the podium and gave a speech where he was almost crying, lamenting that gun control didn't pass both the House & Senate and come to him with a bill to sign. If you don't believe it, search youtube for the video. It was sickening. The (almost meaningless) pro-gun stuff that passed during Obama years was cleverly stuck in bills having nothing to do with guns. The NRA & it's allies in Congress used to be great at this. No more though. It's unclear whether he even read the bill. Under what administration did the ban on Russian AKs happen? I agree with those, that say Biden is waiting for another "mass shooting" (as the media calls it), to go for outright bans. The phony "universal background check" nonsense & mag capacity stuff push could come a lot sooner. I just can't believe they would be dumb enough to stuff all gun control in one bill, unless they feel they may lose the House in two yrs. So if the 1994 AWB hadn't passed in the Senate & House, would we have said that Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer & Joe Biden were pro-gun? Not a chance. As has been said though, I'm equally worried about gun control at the state level right now. |
|
The last time the democrats changed the senate rules (appointments) it got rather promptly shoved up their ass by the ACB nomination. I am not so sure they'll jump on changing the cloture rule to cut off filibusters.
I hate the fact that the republicans absolutely blew up my email and phone SMS recently, but I will note that they seem a lot more cognizant of the gun control aspect than usual. I suspect that they will vote pretty close to party line, much more so than in 1994. I don't trust them, but they have a lot more spine as a minority party than a majority one, and they know that gun control is a hot issue. We can absolutely get some gun control, it isn't nearly as certain as if they had 2009 blue wave majorities. The low hanging fruit is to tie bailouts of state Medicaid programs to RFLs and maybe UBCs. That's arguable more palatable on a federal level to get through congress, since it lets states opt out. If there's just sort of an uneasy stalemate where nothing seems to be moving legislatively, but its still hanging as a possibility, the panic is going to run through the 2022 election. If they put up an AWB and fail, it might end sooner. Basically, anyone that thinks this is over in a year is delusional. |
|
|
Quoted: Based on ammo shortages and prices post Obama and SH....I would say 2-3 years. Just in time for the next election panic. This is a shit hobby nowadays View Quote I can't afford to shoot for fun either... my son keeps bugging me to take him but I just can't do it right now. |
|
So.
I've had time to think about this. Earlier (on 13 January 2021) I posted basically a "worst case" scenario: The bills that we've seen posted so far are the "sacrificial lamb" bills, or the ones by "rogue/crazy" party members like Sheila Jackson-Lee. If they posted their real bills now; they believe (correctly) that the NRA and others would be able to pick apart the bills, and organize old fashioned mail in/phone in campaigns against congressmen. This is why I believe the real bills will not be posted until a date range of: 20 to 22 January (one day before to one day after Inauguration day). They want to get inside the Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) loop of the NRA and other pro-gun organizations. Furthermore, I believe that they will want to take advantage of the thousands of National Guardsmen and other forces in place in Washington DC (along with the barricades around DC) as protection for when they actually do vote on an AWB. I believe they will do the following: 1.) Bill is introduced in the morning. 2.) Bill is released by judiciary committee later that day (they've already sent it to the people they've chosen to chair the committees) 3.) Bill is put on the calendar to be voted on that night, and moves to the Senate, where it's fast tracked the next day. 4.) Within about 48 hours, the bill is on Xiden's desk for him to sign. EDIT: It might actually move so fast that the bill is signed BEFORE the text appears on Congress.gov View Quote Earlier this week, I updated my thinking: I've had time to think about this -- If he hasn't done major gun control moves via EO or regulatory changes by Close of Business Friday, it means the Xiden Administration is holding back gun control as a Trump Card (no pun intended). Six months from now, when his administration is a flaming shitpile; and everyone is crying for his blood in prog-lib circles after he had BLM riots round II put down by the police; or after he put even more kids in cages at the border; they'll use the GUN CONTROL canard to attempt to reinvigorate liberals by going "but look, we banned those evil AK-15s!" View Quote So now it looks like he's holding it back as a "reinvigorate base as we head into the summer doldrums" card now. Let's look at the most common claim I hear about Biden -- that it won't be that bad -- per Jason280 in another thread: "Gun control was just as big an issue under Obama, but even with control of the Senate and the House, nothing was done. Sandy Hook? No new bans. Orlando Night Club? No new bans. Fort Hood? Nothing." View Quote Unlike Republicans, Democrats actually deliver to their base on various "pet" issues. There's a downside to getting "pet causes" passed however. Doing so requires an enormous amount of effort; ranging from under the table bribes to outright threats to keep recalcitrant party members in line. Because of this; generally, when a party seizes near complete control; not much actually gets done other than about 1.5 things. In 2008-2010, that was Obamacare; and it took the democrats two years to get it passed; and Obamacare actually had serious opposition from the GOP; because $$$ talks; and Obamacare was a big threat to a lot of small businesses, etc. Why Obama didn't do much is three factors: 1.) They spent so much political capital on Obamacare that when Sandy Hook came around in 2012; the Democrats hadn't fully recovered from the expenditure of political power on Obamacare two years prior. 2.) The Democratic party of 2010-2012 is much different than the Democratic Party of 2020. All of the old rural Democrats have been purged over the last decade; all of their major stars are from Urban areas like AOC. 3.) Obama while he was pro-gun control and did talk in vague generalities; he wasn't as outspoken as Biden and the Democrats have been this Campaign Cycle. As of 2020, the Overton Window inside the Democratic party has shifted so much that stuff that would've been unthinkable outside of strident anti-gun crusaders has been normalized enough that Sleepy Joe went into lengthy detail with quite specific policy proposals during his campaign, including "put stuff on the National Firearms Act List"; something that has never actually been seriously proposed before at the national level, outside of gun control cranks. Also, all of the Democratic candidates attempted to "one up" each other during the debates; anyone remember Beto O'Rourke's: "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47....We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore." Biden's new White House Deputy Chief of Staff (Jen O'Malley Dillon) was Campaign Manager for Beto O'Rourke's 2020 campaign from 2019 to Spring 2020. Likewise, Biden's VP is none other than Kamala "Microstamping kills the CA Roster" Harris. There is now an "X Factor In Play" THE NRA IS ATTEMPTING TO FILE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY. Additionally, the NRA-ILA (the part that does lobbying) is a total dumpster fire, following WLP firing Chris Cox (who had headed it for nearly 20 years) and then a week or so later also firing Chris Cox's replacement -- all this happened in 2019. That's a lot of institutional knowledge on how to handle Congress and politicans...just gone. Thus, while the balance of Congress is on paper, better than it was in 1994; in that the Democrats have razor thin margins in 2021.... ...don't underestimate the power of TRU BELIEVERS. For almost 80 years, the NRA has been the "boogeyman" of progressive politicans regarding gun control, going back to LBJ and FDR's Attorney General. What do you think they're going to do now that they believe the "gun lobby" is kneecapped and incapable of mounting the kind of response they've put on in past legislative battles? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: But my honest opinion then and now is that the Republicans don't give a shit about gun rights. That's a fact. A little pandering/lip service about the 2nd,and Republicans have the gun owner vote locked up. Hell,even if they pass gun control,they have the gun owner vote locked up. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Remember when everyone said Obama was coming for your guns? Remember the panic of 2008-2009? Remember post Sandy Hook? Gun owners are whiney little victim snowflakes just like the left. View Quote An "Assault Weapons" Ban was voted on in 2013 and received 40 yes votes in the Senate. What do you think that number would be today? https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00101 |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.