Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/8/2008 9:41:24 PM EDT
|
If there is any type of ban in the near future, do you think it would ban semi autos? Should I stock up on saigas now, will they be banned, if there was a ban and they were legal to buy, would price go up, down, stay the same? Just some things that have been on my mind. |
+1 Now's the time to fight the "soft" war. Write the reps, make your voice heard. The sky is not falling chicken little, at least not yet... |
| Look up the previous AWB attempt, HR 1022, I think it was called. No grandfather clause, so even if you bought the rifles legally, they did not want to grandfather them in. They had a list of pretty much any semi auto longarm, including the 10/22, semi shotguns, etc. Military rifles were banned outright. Gives a good idea of what they were thinking! |
|
At risk of repetition, I'll underscore what others said about activism. Concern yourself especially with the COngresscritters; a President Obama, Clinton, McCain or Romney (he's out now, but....) cannot sign what doesn't show up in the White House. That said. I would look at the California type system, which is about what I would expect to happen. There will be no grandfathering like 1994. There will be registration (interesting in itself but part of an overall strategy), papers, then no transfers. Magazines may be banned outright which, though difficult to enforce becomes the bigger problem. Based on that assumption, get lowers (in the case of ar-15s) or equivalent in other systems. Magazines will become a black market item. Ammo is hard to ban as most types are also used in hunting or target rifles. The price of the base commodities as well as availability will restrict ammo somewhat. Learn to reload and get reloading gear before you need an "arsenal license" to own or purchase. |
|
Obama has said he will ban every semi-automatic weapon that exists. Rifle, handgun, shotgun, no matter what the magazine capacity. Hillary would be just as bad she just has taken one from Bill's playbook and won't talk about the issue. She'll just screw us once she is in office. If we allow them to win this fall I can see a California type ban where once you die even your heirs are not allowed to own the weapon. It must be destroyed. An effective total confiscation once the current generation of gun owners dies off. We must NOT allow that to happen and doing everying you can pollitically is the only hope of preserving our rights. I was on the mall in DC 3 days before the vote on the 94 ban. There were a few thousand of us there. If it had been a million instead I think we would have stopped that abomination. |
|
Yup, Obama sent a letter to a member here that stated the following: 1. He supported the right of Hunters to have "sporting" firearms. 2. He would work hard to keep guns out the hands of criminals by banning every semi-automatic firearm. So, I guess that would leave ya with pump action shotguns, bolt action, and lever action rifles really for home defense...maybe single action only revolvers. Whether that would mean a ban on the production and sale of new semi-autos or making possession of any semi-auto illegal only Obama knows for sure. In short, Obama = Seriously BAD for us. If you ask Hillary she just says the blanket: "I want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, but support the use of them by hunters." Whatever the hell that means. |
|
Of course if you let a liberal define an assault weapon it eventually becomes any gun that fires a bullet. What gunowners need to do is vote the Republicans back into power in the Congress. Then if a left-wing Communist fucktard like Obama becomes president he can ban to his heart's content and it won't matter. |
It is pretty rare that the party that picks up the White House doesn't gain seats in the Congress as a lot of people during a Presidential election will punch straight party ticket. Even if we did have Republicans take back the Congress or even just the Senate though and there was a President Obama he could still do a lot of serious harm. The BATFE is under the Executive branch and if the President wants to them to come down on us like the hand of God, believe me they can make life hell on earth. If you look at the ATF before FOPA you can see a sneak peak of that. Than of course there is the importation crap. What is sporting? Boy the President coud direct the ATF to draw up stricter regulations that would pretty much kill the import of pistols for sure and anything semi-auto. That would really suck. We'd also loose out on our chance to make any headway in the Supreme Court. There we would break even with just liberals being replaced with more liberals, but it would suck to know that another Alito could be on the bench. 
|
| I think this is pretty simple. If there is an semi rifle you always wanted, now is the time to get it. Get enough mags for the pistols and semi rifles you own now. With the price of ammow going through the roof, now might be a good time to learn to reload. Stock up on .22 rimfire while its still cheap so you can still shoot if ammo gets out of hand/regulated/whatever. It is futile to try and stockpile stuff you don't need in anticipation of a ban of unknown terms especially if it will have no value if you can't sell it. |
I love it when people here start bitching about folks voting for McCain. I'm not in love with McCain and I think aside from gun control and the Supreme Court nominies (sp), Bush hasn't been the greatest president. Far from it. But the other options are totally unacceptable. |
Yeah without getting all chickenlittle about it there are things you can be doing (in addition to the political process), such as slowly but regularly buying the stuff you WANT as opposed to buying something that may be a good investment but may also be illegal to transfer. |
Two people who obviously have NO idea what the 2nd Amendment means. I looked and I didn't see the part that said, "Deer-hunting being essential to a free state" Obama wants to ban concealed carry as well. Neither one of them is liberal...they're RADICAL. Fortunately, a brief was recently filed by 2/3 of the Senate and half the House supporting the overturn of the DC gun ban in the Heller case and the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense. So your legislators DO have some understanding of what the 2nd means. |
What is so funny is that the media and the liberal sheep are convinced that Obama can "bring this country together."  He is probably the most radical and divisive candidate campaigning for President now that Edwards has dropped out. The frustrating thig is that the media gives him a free pass and even the Clintons get ragged on when they try to question him on anything. I mean ask an Obama supporter to name one thing that he has accomplished. They can't do it. Obama Supporters = Sheep People are falling over themselves for this guy like he's a rock star and have absolutely no clue who he is or what he stands for.
|
Happen to have a link to that letter? Would like to read it... to pisss myself off. 
|
|
Here is Obama position on "SPortsmen Rights" www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf |
Yeah this sounds fishy to me "PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." Until I hear a politician talk about the connection between the 2nd and the reset button I will have concerns on where they stand |
How convenient for them to frame the 2nd Amendment that way..........it makes it easier for them to say "that isnt for hunting, so you cannot have it".........
|
I think a big part of it right now is that he stands for "Hillary not winning". Probably the single biggest issue of this presidential election is "keeping the Clintons out of the White House". That's why Obama has such a big following. Him getting nominated means Hillary goes home. Anyone who mentions "hunting" in the same sentence as "2nd Amendment" is essentially saying, "I want to ban guns, but I don't want to lose the redneck vote, so maybe if I let them hunt they won't realize what I'm doing". I mean...HUNTING?? Do they really think that gun-control is a hot-button issue because of HUNTERS??! Do they really think that the Founding Fathers included the "right to keep and bear arms" in the US Constitution because they wanted to SHOOT BUFFALO??! |
Was posted over in GD a few weeks ago. I'm sure if you email them you'll get the same form email. |
As an attorney myself I see what he is doing here clearly. First, he defines what is "target shooting" in his mind. And then he makes what looks like a broader blanket statement about target shooting later on. In other words your evil black rifle is not used for target shooting, because you're not shooting skeet. Oh, and his statement about being a Constitutional Law professor is almost funny in regards to the Second Amendment. I took a Constitutional 1 and 2 course while in law school, which came to about thirty weeks in total with about 28 weeks actual instruction (exams final week). We discussed the Second Amendment "ZERO" times. Not once did we review U.S. v Miller or have any examination of the Second Amendment. This is pretty common in most law schools as there just isn't a lot of case law that even makes mention of the Second Amendment. Oh, and I am not aware of ANY Bar Exam that has ever had a Second Amendment question...ever! So, his whole argument that "I know what the Second means, because I taught Con Law and am an Attorney" is total crap. |
My Con Law 1 professor didn't bring up the second, except to say that the fact that it's #2 doesn't mean that the framers found it to be particularly important. |
'Yep, cause they did such a great job of correcting all the problems the Democrats got us into when they had control......... Seriously, what is the Republican party pushing for president? McLame??? I'm from AZ originally and don't trust him any more than I do Hillery!! |
|
Preparing for a ban by spending lots of money on guns, mags, parts, etc. is useless and ignorant, in my opinion. Write reps, join NRA, get folks into shooting, be a responsible, educated, and vocal gun owner, have fun at the range, let anyone interested in your scary black rifle at the range put some rounds down range with it, vote your conscience. |
| Executive (dictatorial powers) orders from the president can take time to over ride. Grandfathered in will be fine for us older wiser folks but what ab out the kids, our future. With the price of bullets skyrocketing right now I would assume most shooting has been reduced by a certain percentage since we have increasing taxes and the cost of living is going up every day it seems. I know I am shooting less and not liking it. We need to come up with a plan on how to shoot more often and get the epa out of our ranges. |
|
Best thing you can do is educate folks on shooting and guns. And I don't belong to the NRA and probably never will. Bill Bennet, the first drug czar, used to work for the NRA and railroaded through the '89 import ban. They heavily supported the 1st Bush who heavily backed it. In 1980 they gave BILL CLINTON an A rating. They're as corrupt as any other body of people. Seriously, buy what you want and educate as many people as possible on guns and the fun of shooting. Especially black rifles. Our best bet for the future is in the large companies who make these things. Cerberus international and the money they represent will be a HUGE help as that conglomerate of companies represents 4 different companies that make ARs. Also, remember how much better educated gun owners are now than before. Look at the internet and the HUGE help it is in getting people mobilized. Politicians are slowly realizing that gun grabbing is really unpopular. We need to have them keep this in mind! |
haha -- you know, I often thought that as well. Not ONCE was the 2nd Amendment ever mentioned in any class I ever took. |
| You know, can't you technically hunt with ANY rifle or handgun out there depending on the time of year and limiting capacity? This moron is from Illinois, any anti-gun comment from his mouth or written down is not a surprise to me. He will refuse to admit that the 2nd amendment was not made for hunting. I say admit because he KNOWS just like every anti-gun polotician knows. Then he wants to ban all CCW permits, because his home state refuses to allow its citizens to carry. Hell we can't even carry pepper spray, a tazer or a knife longer than 3 inches. |
|
I see a gun ban comming for sure. With a school shooting every month, its in inevitibility. My guess, it will come in the guise of a "homeland security" anti-terror bill. As far as I am concerned, the checks in the mail...This time next year might be very different for us. I get so sick of Republicans and thier ignorance about Democrats and gun control, considering both have passed detremental legislation. Personally, I am more hampered by Republican passed laws than any the Democrats passed. I can't own an affordible select fire weapon because of Ronald Regan, in addition to other perverions that are the 86 NFA. I also have to abide by 922 and can't own HK/Sig/Steyr/Beretta long arms because George Bush Sr. says they are unsuitible for sporting. Do I need to remind anyone he was a Republican? Yes, Clinton passed an ascinine assault weapons ban. This had very little effect on my life...I could care less about bayonet lugs, as I own more rifles than I can count and only 1 bayonet. I like folding stocks, but I never fold them. I like threaded barrels, but I never remove muzzle devices. I find something I like and stick with it...The principle of it was the most bothersome thing about it, as if you wanted to ban guns used in crimes, ban .22's and HiPoints. While silly laws were passed under Clinton, none of those laws adversely effect my day to day life. The Republican passed gun laws hamper me infinitly more... Some of these Republicans are so clueless. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they are on, most legislators are unfriendly towars the 2nd amendment. They all pass silly/infringing laws. I am a pragmatist more than anything else. While I completely support the 2nd amendment, I care more about the economy/war/health care. If the bottom drops out of our economy*like whats about to happen* I won't be able to afford food, let alone guns. If I get sick and don't have insurance, again I won't be shooting. I haven't given up, but I think I am a little more realistic/objective/practical than those who say all D's want to take your guns. Live your life. Go to work. Play with your dog. Vote for who you like based on whats important to you. Don't take out a second mortgage to buy receivers or something. Tomorrow is promise to no one. While its important, there are much more important issues right now than the 2nd amendment. |
Yep, I'm with you there Bro. |
Can't blame Reagan for FOPA really. That bill included a lot of protections for FFLs that were getting hammered by the ATF on a regular basis. The Democrats tossed in the Machine Gun Ban at the 11th hour and people were forced with either eating it or losing the bill all together. It was a rock and a hard place for Republicans who at that time were the minority in Congress. If Reagan had vetoed it he would have been forced to risk the chance that those protections may have never come to the FFLs and the ATF would have slowly closed FFLs down all over the country. I think he should have gambeled and vetoed it, but it wasn't something that was really cut and dry to decide. The 1989 Import Ban by Bush wouldn't have been possible without the 1968 GCA's "sporting puposes" clause. They left those terms undefined in the law and it was only a matter of time before someone directed the ATF to define it under federal administrative law. I can promise you that Clinton who expanded the import ban twice would have defintely done the same thing. Doesn't make it right, but the source of the import ban is legislation passed by Democrats. Every piece of legislation that is the basis for firearms restriction was authored by, introduced by, and passed by Democrats. |
Yes, I blame Reagan. He was the last line of defense. That means someone, anyone has to actually READ IT to see what is in it before the POTUS signs it. Ultimately it falls to the guy in charge to make sure that happens. That is the POTUS. Either he signed it knowing what it would do, or he was ignorant. Either way, IMO he was wrong. In my opinion, FOPA and the effective ban on ownership or manufacture of new machineguns by civilians was the most heinous act since 1934, when the gov't decided to start deciding who could and could not own automatic firearms, bar none. This is my opinion, you results may vary. |
But again, the worst of it was SIGNED INTO LAW by Republican Presidents. They had the Veto pen and chose not to send those bills back for a re-do. That makes them as complicit as anyone else. I believe the POTUS is in fact responsible for his own actions, no matter how many excuses are made. |
The ATF is executive branch. If Reagan wanted to stop the ATF from hammering/shutting down FFLs, he didn't need legislation to do it. He could have just said STOP. Same thing applies to "Sporting Purposes". Bush could have had the ATF define "Sporting" as being used for any recognized sport; three-gun and high-power would have got them in. |
|
Given that they will probably stop the transfer of AWs to minors, and later stop transfers altogether like CA, it might be wise to gift one or two AWs to each of your kids. Put the gift in writing, and notarize it so that you can prove that the transfer was done before the ban. Have enough rifle and pistol mags to gift some of those as well if a Californiaesque scheme really does come to pass. During the last AWB, "preban" rifles went up in price about 50%+; I think they didn't go up more because "postban" rifles were a reasonable substitute. It was the mags that skyrocketed in price; they usually tripled or more. I actually sold some for $75 each at one point. Pistol mags were even worse than rifle mags because no pistols were banned; even now, the antigunners are still focused on AWs more than pistols. So the supply of high caps is fixed but the number of rifles and pistols that can use them keeps increasing. Accordingly, I think stockpiling mags is more important than stockpiling guns. Of course you will need at least one good rifle and some ammo when you take to the hills to join the Liberty Brigades. 
|
Great question does anybody know the answer? rules for trust and corporations are different right. Corporations have multiple people in them over a period of years and the people can change. |
Armory Sponsor