Now that the Clinton Gun Ban is breathing it's last breath, we need to go on the offensive.  No, we must go on the offensive.  We have too much to gain to let our infrastructure go to waste.

It's time to rally the troops for the next offensive on the federal level.  

We need to collectively decide where we focus our efforts.  It could be repealing the '86 ban on new machine guns or national CCW, or suppressors (hearing conservation).  

If we keep them fighting us on OUR topics, they will have no time to regroup and keep us on our heels fighting on the ground of their choosing.

So, how do we get started?
jd1

How about getting a SCOTUS decision affirming the individual rights view? After that, it makes it much easier to chip away at everything else.

I agree but we need a national group to lead the charge, maybe the NRA should step up, I'll follow.

Going to SCOTUS with its current makeup is WAY too much of a crapshoot.

They won't touch it anyway.

They say it's an individual right and the entire body of laws built up over decades could end up getting tossed.

They say it's not an individual right and that could be final straw for many people in this country that still have some faith in the system.

Nope, far eaiser for them to duck the issue.

Go after suppressors, the MG or import bans next.  Get them repealed.  Start on National CCW.  There are several good places to start, we (and the NRA, GOA and state level orgs) just need to figure out where.

Quoted: Now that the Clinton Gun Ban is breathing it's last breath, we need to go on the offensive.  No, we must go on the offensive.  We have too much to gain to let our infrastructure go to waste. It's time to rally the troops for the next offensive on the federal level.

You can't go on the offensive if you don't have the votes.

We need to collectively decide where we focus our efforts.  It could be repealing the '86 ban on new machine guns or national CCW, or suppressors (hearing conservation).

We don't have the votes to repeal the 1994 ban in the Senate, let alone the 1986 ban. The only reason we are seeing an end at all is because it was written into the law. Before any of those issues stand much of a chance, I think we'll need to replace some Senators and maybe some Representatives.

So, how do we get started? jd1

Four GOA F-rated Senators are retiring this year and F-rated incumbent Tom Daschle faces a tough fight for reelection in South Dakota. All of the Republican candidates running for these seats have B or above ratings from GOA. We could gain more pro-RKBA seats in the Senate in this one election than we have in the last ten years.

With 5 new pro-RKBA Senators replacing 5 F-rated Senators, we have a majority in both the House and Senate. We don't have enough to override a filibuster but we have enough to start chipping at the foundations - all we would need is a President who will sign such laws.

This November is where we get started.

From last week I said:

Time to Hit the Phones and Email, AGAIN… as we did several months ago and recently with the “junk law suit” bill and 94 AWB, respectively. We need to hit the phones and send email after email to our state representatives and government leaders early in the morning on Sept. 13 (the whole day) to let them know that we are not pacified easily or readily. “Guns do not cause crime, criminals do!” My state reps. are and have been on board for the support of our 2nd amends. rights. They reported that their offices were contacted more frequently during the junk law suit bill vote than ever before and any other single issue. We have 18 days to float this idea for support on the other sites. I am sure that someone else has already suggested this, but I can not find it on the web or arfcom. No time to relax and "FEEL GOOD" just because Total Infringement is a day away instead of an hour away. Iso Posted :: 8/25/2004 7:36:03 PM

Our rights were stripped in small bits, we need to fight back the same way.

I think we should focus on getting the sporting use clause removed from law.

Quoted: How about getting a SCOTUS decision affirming the individual rights view? After that, it makes it much easier to chip away at everything else.

Agreed.  How about a constitutional amendment declaring it a individual right? We can bypass the congress and all of the political crap that way.... We'd need 2/3 of the states to support a constitutional convention, and then approval by 3/4 of the states. Possible?

Personally, I think we should have a constitutional convention every 50 years or so anyway...

I am in full agreement. I tried to get some support for this a while back but everyone told me I was "wasting my time." It was nothing but pessimism and laziness. I'm all for it if everyone will muscle up. We need to hit the import ban next since that's an executive order. Bush can remove that and don't bother saying "oh he'll never do it." we need to TRY. we have nothing to loose and a LOT of ground to gain. Those who don't try are worthless and weak and do not deserve their freedom.


Another idea is for gun manufacturers to set up legal defensive co-ops. Fight back. Give these people a swipe a cross the face. Show them we're not going to take it.

start a poll.

I vote for repealing the '86 ban first...

Quoted: We need to hit the import ban next since that's an executive order. Bush can remove that and don't bother saying "oh he'll never do it." we need to TRY. we have nothing to loose and a LOT of ground to gain. Those who don't try are worthless and weak and do not deserve their freedom. Another idea is for gun manufacturers to set up legal defensive co-ops. Fight back. Give these people a swipe a cross the face. Show them we're not going to take it.

+1

Suppressors are a C3 item, & relevant to the '34 NFA Act, whereby states have latitude to decide whether or not to allow individuals to own them. The CCW movement is approaching national recognition all on its own power, though it would be a kick in the nuts for East-coast state politicians in NJ, NY, MA, etc. to have to relinquish their (unconstitutional) prohibition of it. A machine gun ban repeal would be a hard sell at best; probably bring out all kinds of hysteria. It's already obvious how inaccurate, deceptive, & downright fraudulent the news coverage of the AWB expiration has been, so it would only get worse over MG legalization. e.g. I just watched a report on CNN (Paula Zahn) where the story reporter stated that grenade launchers had been outlawed under the '94 AWB. Can't wait to get mine this coming Monday.

As for the SCOTUS, well they've already shown their derision for the particular subject matter, as they turned down a review of Sylviera v. Lockyer, the most pointed inquest into the original intent & meaning of the 2nd Amend; a point-blank, 10-ring 2nd Amendment case if one ever existed. In essence, the 'Holy Grail' of firearm certiorari petitions, & it was turned away w/ mute reply.

I think this all makes the writing on the wall is pretty plain as far as the Justices are concerned: gun rights will be determined on the basis of popular opinion, not Constitutional recognition. Sad, but true.

Want have an effect on opinions about firearms? Take people out to shoot. Make friends. Expose them to the fun this right/hobby offers, then talk about the significance of the 2nd Amendment, & let the wheels spin.

Quoted: Now that the Clinton Gun Ban is breathing it's last breath, we need to go on the offensive.  No, we must go on the offensive.  We have too much to gain to let our infrastructure go to waste. It's time to rally the troops for the next offensive on the federal level.   We need to collectively decide where we focus our efforts.  It could be repealing the '86 ban on new machine guns or national CCW, or suppressors (hearing conservation).   If we keep them fighting us on OUR topics, they will have no time to regroup and keep us on our heels fighting on the ground of their choosing. So, how do we get started? jd1

National CCW or the repeal of 'sporting purposes'

One Note

If you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, to perminantly ruin any chance of repealing any more gun control, attack the NFA and GCA.

The fact is, that those 2 alone are basically harmless once the 'sporting purposes' clause is changed to 'any lawful purpose', and 922(o) (MG ban) is removed. Leave NICS alone too, it's also harmless.

We are NOT going to EVER return to a world of NO gun laws.

Having to hold a license to engage in the business, and pay a $200 tax for a MG or supressor is NBD...

If we could just get back to the point where that was the ONLY restriction, we'd be fine...

These laws have to go:
'Sporting Purposes' test and 922(r)
922(o) 1986 MG ban
Lautenberg Ammendment.

The rest is harmless and should be left alone, it's not woth the energy to fight...

Oh, after those 3, go for national firearms pre-emption.

We have to elect a pro gun congress.

CRC

Yes, I think the main offensive tack is to put pro-gun votes in Congress and go after the "sporting purposes" clause. I like the idea of replacing it with "any lawful purpose" but lets note that in Canada, Australia, and England one of the first things the antis did was to remove self-defense as a lawful reason to own a firearm.

Without the "sporting purposes" clause in the 1968 GCA, the 1989 import ban and all subsequent enhancements of that ban go away - so does the point system for imported pistols that drives up costs.

Eliminate the "sporting purposes" clause from the 1934 NFA and BATFE can no longer randomly point to a shotgun and say "Presto Chango! It is a destructive device!"

Quoted: Quoted: Now that the Clinton Gun Ban is breathing it's last breath, we need to go on the offensive.  No, we must go on the offensive.  We have too much to gain to let our infrastructure go to waste. It's time to rally the troops for the next offensive on the federal level.   We need to collectively decide where we focus our efforts.  It could be repealing the '86 ban on new machine guns or national CCW, or suppressors (hearing conservation).   If we keep them fighting us on OUR topics, they will have no time to regroup and keep us on our heels fighting on the ground of their choosing. So, how do we get started? jd1 National CCW or the repeal of 'sporting purposes' One Note If you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, to perminantly ruin any chance of repealing any more gun control, attack the NFA and GCA. The fact is, that those 2 alone are basically harmless once the 'sporting purposes' clause is changed to 'any lawful purpose', and 922(o) (MG ban) is removed. Leave NICS alone too, it's also harmless. We are NOT going to EVER return to a world of NO gun laws. Having to hold a license to engage in the business, and pay a $200 tax for a MG or supressor is NBD... If we could just get back to the point where that was the ONLY restriction, we'd be fine... These laws have to go: 'Sporting Purposes' test and 922(r) 922(o) 1986 MG ban Lautenberg Ammendment. The rest is harmless and should be left alone, it's not woth the energy to fight... Oh, after those 3, go for national firearms pre-emption.

National CCW is gaining ground little by little. I'd say go for the 89 import ban and or the "sporting purposes".

Most important is the appointment of the RIGHT kind of Justices to the Supreme Court.
Judges all along the way are the ones will decide the outcome of any "battles".

We'll see where any of this goes depending on the outcome of the vote on repealing the DC gun ban.

- BG

Quoted: National CCW or the repeal of 'sporting purposes' One Note If you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, to perminantly ruin any chance of repealing any more gun control, attack the NFA and GCA. The fact is, that those 2 alone are basically harmless once the 'sporting purposes' clause is changed to 'any lawful purpose', and 922(o) (MG ban) is removed. Leave NICS alone too, it's also harmless. We are NOT going to EVER return to a world of NO gun laws. Having to hold a license to engage in the business, and pay a $200 tax for a MG or supressor is NBD... If we could just get back to the point where that was the ONLY restriction, we'd be fine... These laws have to go: 'Sporting Purposes' test and 922(r) 922(o) 1986 MG ban Lautenberg Ammendment. The rest is harmless and should be left alone, it's not woth the energy to fight... Oh, after those 3, go for national firearms pre-emption.

+1

Sounds like a good plan. Incrementalism is not a one-way street.

Although NICS must be watched constantly to ensure 'rats like Schumer don't start preserving the records. That would make it dangerous. In that, we ought to be thankful Ashcroft has blocked attempts to preserve said records.

I wonder if Kerry's AG would be so inclined?

Quoted: Although NICS must be watched constantly to ensure 'rats like Schumer don't start preserving the records. That would make it dangerous. In that, we ought to be thankful Ashcroft has blocked attempts to preserve said records. I wonder if Kerry's AG would be so inclined?

Wouldn't matter since the Bush Administration signed the Tiahrt Amendment which makes AG Ashcroft's decision to destroy records of legitimate NICS purchases in one day the law of the land rather than a bureaucratic decision.

Though a Kerry AG could still be pretty bad now that ATFE is under Justice... imagine Janet Reno as head of both ATFE and FBI. Throw in Kerry pushing for some vague gunlaws that leave a tremendous amount of discretion up to the AG  and that is some bad news.