What's likely to be banned? When?

[wreave]

To address the second question first, will Obama issue an Executive Order, or will he at least give Congress some time to work?

More importantly, what are we likely to see at a national level?

-ban on mags with capacity greater than ten
-all gun transfers must go through background check

Those seem pretty likely to me, and at least logically defensible. I'm not saying I agree with them, just that I can understand someone who does.

What about the cosmetic features they went after last time? Pistol grips, bayonets, muzzle devices... What about shotguns with capacity >x? Online ammo sales, ammo sales in excess of a certain quantity... What else?

I know that some people won't be happy unless all you can get is single shot 22s and 410s, but I'm asking for realistic scenarios. Not the politics, but a shopping list, if you will. What do I need to get now while I still can?

[Zundfolge]

On the federal level I doubt we get any gun control. I know a lot of people are going to say I'm crazy, but you can't get anything remotely controversial through the house and senate right now ... I just don't see any major gun control law passing in the next session (and if they don't get it in the beginning of the next session the momentum will be gone).

As for Executive Order, too many people (this president included) are under the false impression that EOs are as powerful as Royal Edicts.

There are only a few things that Obama could do with Executive Orders vis-a-vis guns.

He could order the ATF to stop processing Form 4 paperwork, which would effectively stop Americans from being able to buy full automatic machine guns, sound suppressors and short barreled rifles and shotguns. That would be annoying but not permanent and not a very broad attack on the Second Amendment.
He could shut down the NICS background check system. Which would actually end up putting MORE guns in the hands of criminals since it would just force most gun purchasers to wait 72 hours but would no longer weed out the bad guys.
He could block imports of firearms and ammunition.


That's really about it. No outright bans, just minor interferences with purchase of new guns from gun dealers.
I say let him go for it because the dirty little secret is that gun control harms Democrats. The '94 AWB is part of the reason we never had a President Gore.


Now on the state level, Hick and the Denver/Boulder/Aspen/Pueblo Demonrats could possibly pull off an AWB. But then there's a good chance that will cause them to hand the state back over to Republicans (if only the Colorado Republican Party wasn't a [rhymes with Buster Duck] of feckless morons).

[trlcavscout]

Probably the same stuff as previous, and FTF sales, national registration likely, permit system? Even more importation restrictions, magazine buttons like california since it works so good there. Oh and those damn barrel shrouds!

[Kraven251]

Barrel shroud?

[Mick-Boy]

Likely to be banned??!?

I refuse to accept your premiss. Get in touch with your representatives. Write, call, email, send smoke signals or carrier pigeons. Whatever it takes.

[Zundfolge]

Look at Canadian gun owners for a bit of inspiration.

The Canuks instituted a gun registry and a significant number of gun owners have ignored it. Now they're talking about scrapping it because it's been nothing but a waste of money and police resources.

If there are bans it's time for civil disobedience.

Expect boat sales to go through the roof.

[birddog]

I'm also highly curious about this thread. I don't want to contribute to fear mongering but have a few extra bucks that might be used for sporting arms related items.

[Ronin13]

I'm saving up for a Daniel Defense Mk18 SBR... I'm going to be awful pissed if something stops that from happening (March/April timeframe at the earliest). I'm wondering if I should be stocking up on PMAGs and preemptively buying "non-CA Restricted" mags for the Sig P229 I plan on buying next year as well...

Anyone know where I can get some diving gear on the cheap? I think I might try and locate some sights were some horrible boating accidents occurred. [Coffee]

[Aloha_Shooter]

The problem with your voice of calm Zundfolge is that this president has already demonstrated he doesn't recognize limits on his powers. I think we all need to take a collective deep breath before panicking but I also think Obama will push the envelope of what he can do via Executive Order just because he has nothing left to lose and he's ideologically opposed to the Second Amendment.

[JMBD2112]

The problem with your voice of calm Zundfolge is that this president has already demonstrated he doesn't recognize limits on his powers. I think we all need to take a collective deep breath before panicking but I also think Obama will push the envelope of what he can do via Executive Order just because he has nothing left to lose and he's ideologically opposed to the Second Amendment.

^^^^THIS.....
i totally agree, he's used an executive order for his own agenda once, so he's more than likely to do it again

[JMBD2112]

but on the other hand zundfoldge i pray you're right

[Zundfolge]

The problem with your voice of calm Zundfolge is that this president has already demonstrated he doesn't recognize limits on his powers. I think we all need to take a collective deep breath before panicking but I also think Obama will push the envelope of what he can do via Executive Order just because he has nothing left to lose and he's ideologically opposed to the Second Amendment.
Obama doesn't have to recognize the limits on his powers for those limits to still be limiting.

If anyone can point to something he could actually do aside from the things I listed, I'm all ears.

Thing is every time he over-extends his reach he burns up political capital ... he can't keep doing it forever without it starting to hurt him and frankly I think he's much more interested in redistributing the wealth and bringing down capitalism to waste too much political capital doing something he will be able to do by edict once he's collapsed the system and instituted a Marxist dictatorship.

[merl]

Obama doesn't have to recognize the limits on his powers for those limits to still be limiting.

If anyone can point to something he could actually do aside from the things I listed, I'm all ears.

Thing is every time he over-extends his reach he burns up political capital ... he can't keep doing it forever without it starting to hurt him and frankly I think he's much more interested in redistributing the wealth and bringing down capitalism to waste too much political capital doing something he will be able to do by edict once he's collapsed the system and instituted a Marxist dictatorship.

If anything I would love to see Obama severely overreach in what he can do. He does it, everyone calms down and it gets challenged/overturned in court. nothing ends up happening that way.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Obama burned no political capital and took no hits for making illegal recess appointments while Congress wasn't recessed. Congress didn't even decrement the budget for the affected agency by the salary of the illegal appointee. I think Obama is following Andrew Jackson's example with the Supreme Court negation of the Indian Removal Act ("John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.") so is even more likely to use broad EOs that will take years to litigate to SCOTUS before they can be negated.

It wouldn't surprise me if he starts with EOs cutting off importation of "tacticool" parts and restricting high capacity magazines and waits to see what the response is.

[BPTactical]

I think the arrogant prick will try anything he can. Let's not forget a couple of statements he has made of late: "it is time for meaningful action regardless of politics" & "I will use all of the powers of my office".

He will endorse anything he can to further the liberal/progressive antigun agenda.
I don't think the legality of anything bothers him in the least, if he does something illegal/non-constitutional who is going to call him on it? Not the spineless Congress and Representatives we have now.
And so what if they do?
It would be tied up in the courts for years and by then, the damage has been long done.
Once we lose our rights, we will not get them back for a very long time, if ever.
Not to mention there are droves of sheeple that feel the Constitution is outdated and it needs to be changed.
Too bad the ignorant bastards don't realize that if it were not for the Second Amendment, the majority of the other Amendments will collapse.


Just remember this qoute: "Its time to fundamentally change America"

[Zundfolge]

It wouldn't surprise me if he starts with EOs cutting off importation of "tacticool" parts and restricting high capacity magazines and waits to see what the response is.

I can see him cutting off importation with executive order (because that IS under his control), but how does he simply decree restrictions on high capacity magazines? He can't make law from whole cloth (yet).

[Fmedges]

I can see him cutting off importation with executive order (because that IS under his control), but how does he simply decree restrictions on high capacity magazines? He can't make law from whole cloth (yet).

He can if he is allowed to do so. From what I have see who is going to stop him? The checks and balances haven't worked so far.

[asmo]

What will be banned if they have their way. Taken from California's laws. I will bet real dollars that any proposed law will read damn near identical to this. Why? Because it has been tested in court and withstood.

Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

Pistols
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Shotguns
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

"Large Capacity" Magazines
A large capacity magazine is defined as “any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10
rounds but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that is permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds nor shall it include any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device".

[merl]

What will be banned if they have their way. Taken from California's laws. I will bet real dollars that any proposed law will read damn near identical to this. Why? Because it has been tested in court and withstood.



Feinstien has already promised to introduce that. Just like she does every year. That would have to pass congress though.

[SA Friday]

What will be banned if they have their way. Taken from California's laws. I will bet real dollars that any proposed law will read damn near identical to this. Why? Because it has been tested in court and withstood.

Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

Pistols
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Shotguns
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

"Large Capacity" Magazines
A large capacity magazine is defined as “any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10
rounds but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that is permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds nor shall it include any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device".
Yes, but the court system under the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circuit itself has been overturned more than any other system in this countries history.

Only time will tell what is to come.

[wreave]

The California list is probably a safe bet. The sad thing is how little most of it means. I understand the issue with high capacity magazines. Don't agree, obviously, but I understand. But pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, flash suppressors? Folding/telescoping stock? Why? Just because they look scary? Because they fit with someone's idea of what an "assault rifle" looks like?

Yeah, I know logic is not a strong player here, but I just wonder if there is any logical intent.

[wreave]

Also, what about waiting periods and/or one-gun-per-month?

[asmo]

Also, what about waiting periods and/or one-gun-per-month?

The question was what is likely to be banned. But I wouldn't doubt they put on waiting lists in the initial offer and then negotiate down to the above.

[merl]

random question, has anyone ever introduced an amendment to remove the second from the constitution? If so, how far did it get? I know it wouldn't get far now but just curious.

[birddog]

I'm also curious, if an AWB were passed is there any legal requirement for it to be limited to a timeframe such as ten years?

i know the last one expired after 10 years but didn't know if that was a requirement or just how that one was written.

[asmo]

I'm also curious, if an AWB were passed is there any legal requirement for it to be limited to a timeframe such as ten years?

i know the last one expired after 10 years but didn't know if that was a requirement or just how that one was written.

Just how that was written. It was part of the negotiation tactics from our lovely NRA. The gave some concessions on other things in exchange for the sunset provision.

[UrbanWolf]

Look at Canadian gun owners for a bit of inspiration.

The Canuks instituted a gun registry and a significant number of gun owners have ignored it. Now they're talking about scrapping it because it's been nothing but a waste of money and police resources.

If there are bans it's time for civil disobedience.

Expect boat sales to go through the roof.

And life jackets.

[birddog]

Just how that was written. It was part of the negotiation tactics from our lovely NRA. The gave some concessions on other things in exchange for the sunset provision.

So in theory a new AWB could be permanent unless overturned by the geniuses in Washington?

[Zundfolge]

random question, has anyone ever introduced an amendment to remove the second from the constitution? If so, how far did it get? I know it wouldn't get far now but just curious.
Its not that simple.

A bill to remove the Second Amendment (or remove or add any other amendment to the Constitution) would have to win the House with at least a 2/3 majority THEN win the Senate with at least a 2/3 majority THEN pass both the Houses and Senates of at least 2/3 of the states with at least 2/3 majorities.

So they can put forth all the "repeal the Second Amendment" bills they want ... they aren't getting anywhere.



He can if he is allowed to do so. From what I have see who is going to stop him? The checks and balances haven't worked so far.
I guess my overall question here is to whom is his Executive Order to ban high capacity magazines (for example) going to be directed at?

Executive Orders aren't Royal Edicts, they are merely orders given by the President to government agencies that fall under the umbrella of the Executive Branch of government.

Executive Orders don't apply to you and me, they don't apply to the courts, they don't apply to Congress (and the agencies that fall under THEIR control).

So there isn't anyone he has the power to order to ban magazines that has the power to ban magazines.



Folks, we have a lot more power and safeguards in place than many here realize.

[asmo]

So in theory a new AWB could be permanent unless overturned by the geniuses in Washington?

Correct. And seeing how the sunset provision turned out so well (for them) this last time I doubt it would be included in any new legislation. But the NRA could do thier super as usual job again and get it added - the both sides would show a win, the news networks would proclaim victory for each side and we would go back to caring about what some twit on TV did to some other douchebag on TV.

[Zundfolge]

IF there's a sunset provision in any gun control or AWB type thing coming down the pike they'll likely be smart enough to make it a "vote in 10 years to kill it or it becomes permanent" thing (like the Bush tax rates) instead of a "vote in 10 years to keep it alive or it goes away" provision like the 94 AWB.

If they're able to put together a new AWB I seriously doubt it'll have a sunset provision in it. The Reid/Pelosi years have hardened the Democrats into completely unyielding, no-compromise street fighters.

[merl]

Its not that simple.

A bill to remove the Second Amendment (or remove or add any other amendment to the Constitution) would have to win the House with at least a 2/3 majority THEN win the Senate with at least a 2/3 majority THEN pass both the Houses and Senates of at least 2/3 of the states with at least 2/3 majorities.

So they can put forth all the "repeal the Second Amendment" bills they want ... they aren't getting anywhere.



I know how difficult it is. there have been times when it might have gotten through house & senate but never through the states. Just curious if anyone on the other side has ever had the balls for a frontal attack.

[Fmedges]

Its not that simple.

A bill to remove the Second Amendment (or remove or add any other amendment to the Constitution) would have to win the House with at least a 2/3 majority THEN win the Senate with at least a 2/3 majority THEN pass both the Houses and Senates of at least 2/3 of the states with at least 2/3 majorities.

So they can put forth all the "repeal the Second Amendment" bills they want ... they aren't getting anywhere.



I guess my overall question here is to whom is his Executive Order to ban high capacity magazines (for example) going to be directed at?

Executive Orders aren't Royal Edicts, they are merely orders given by the President to government agencies that fall under the umbrella of the Executive Branch of government.

Executive Orders don't apply to you and me, they don't apply to the courts, they don't apply to Congress (and the agencies that fall under THEIR control).

So there isn't anyone he has the power to order to ban magazines that has the power to ban magazines.



Folks, we have a lot more power and safeguards in place than many here realize.

Good point, I don't know why I didn't realize that his EO's only effect agencies and not citizens.

[Ronin13]

If they're able to put together a new AWB I seriously doubt it'll have a sunset provision in it. The Reid/Pelosi years have hardened the Democrats into completely unyielding, no-compromise street fighters.
Luckily, from what they've been saying these past few years, the NRA is also taking that stance, and let's hope they keep it, because love 'em or hate 'em, they're our strongest ally in the fight against the grabbers.

[TFOGGER]

Its not that simple.

A bill to remove the Second Amendment (or remove or add any other amendment to the Constitution) would have to win the House with at least a 2/3 majority THEN win the Senate with at least a 2/3 majority THEN pass both the Houses and Senates of at least 2/3 of the states with at least 2/3 majorities.

So they can put forth all the "repeal the Second Amendment" bills they want ... they aren't getting anywhere.



I guess my overall question here is to whom is his Executive Order to ban high capacity magazines (for example) going to be directed at?

Executive Orders aren't Royal Edicts, they are merely orders given by the President to government agencies that fall under the umbrella of the Executive Branch of government.

Executive Orders don't apply to you and me, they don't apply to the courts, they don't apply to Congress (and the agencies that fall under THEIR control).

So there isn't anyone he has the power to order to ban magazines that has the power to ban magazines.



Folks, we have a lot more power and safeguards in place than many here realize.

His Royal Hiney can issue an EO to BATFE to restrict (administratively) whatever the hell he wants. Past experience has shown that they and the Justice Dept. are pretty much lapdogs of the Executive branch.

[asmo]

Luckily, from what they've been saying these past few years, the NRA is also taking that stance, and let's hope they keep it, because love 'em or hate 'em, they're our strongest ally in the fight against the grabbers.

They are whiny bitches with no real dog in this fight. The NRA board is still filled with a bunch of folks that only care about their hunting rifles. There are some exceptions but they are in the minority. The only reason why the NRA got involved with the last AWB is because the original language was going to ban some popular hunting rifles.

The absolute best thing we can do is scream LOUDLY to the NRA that we won't tolerate ANY limitation in our gun rights. Tell them over and over and over again that if they fail us here that they will never get another dime. I am a NRA Benefactor and I have been screaming at deaf ears for a good long while now. The more people taking them to task the higher probability they will listen.

[sniper7]

they will probably ban all of them and every single piece of ammo out there.

[HoneyBadger]

Executive Orders aren't Royal Edicts, they are merely orders given by the President to government agencies that fall under the umbrella of the Executive Branch of government.

Executive Orders don't apply to you and me, they don't apply to the courts, they don't apply to Congress (and the agencies that fall under THEIR control).

So there isn't anyone he has the power to order to ban magazines that has the power to ban magazines.

Folks, we have a lot more power and safeguards in place than many here realize.

I know the TSA and DHS were created by Acts of Congress, but what is to stop BHO from creating a new organization or expanding the power of an organization under the umbrella of the Executive office such as the Secret Service? The Secret Service does a lot more than protect politicians... They investigate money laundering and counterfeitting cases. Even more, they are all armed agents. (Speaking very tin-foiley here, playing Barack's advocate) What is to keep the Secret Service from becomming the SS of Hitler's era?

[Byte Stryke]

I know the TSA and DHS were created by Acts of Congress, but what is to stop BHO from creating a new organization or expanding the power of an organization under the umbrella of the Executive office such as the Secret Service? The Secret Service does a lot more than protect politicians... They investigate money laundering and counterfeiting cases. Even more, they are all armed agents. (Speaking very tin-foiley here, playing Barack's advocate) What is to keep the Secret Service from becoming even more like the SS of Hitler's era?


FTFY

[loveski]

What are the chances they limit NFA firearms. I was about to send in tax stamps for suppressors and a few SBR's... Should I try to get em in before the crap hits the fan or wait a few months to see if he just shuts the whole ATF tax stamp deal down?? Any thoughts?

[HoneyBadger]

FTFY

Thanks for fixing my spelling of "becoming" as well. [Beer]

[Ronin13]

What are the chances they limit NFA firearms. I was about to send in tax stamps for suppressors and a few SBR's... Should I try to get em in before the crap hits the fan or wait a few months to see if he just shuts the whole ATF tax stamp deal down?? Any thoughts?
I'm wondering the same thing...

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

I wish they'd ban stupid people. Bam! Problem solved!

[Zundfolge]

What are the chances they limit NFA firearms. I was about to send in tax stamps for suppressors and a few SBR's... Should I try to get em in before the crap hits the fan or wait a few months to see if he just shuts the whole ATF tax stamp deal down?? Any thoughts?

NFA has long flown way under the radar ... that's one reason so many folk registered SBRs during the previous AWB since NFA guns were exempt.

[loveski]

NFA has long flown way under the radar ... that's one reason so many folk registered SBRs during the previous AWB since NFA guns were exempt.

So better to send em in ASAP rather than wait.. I've just got Executive Order jitters..

[Singlestack]

I'm more concerned about Chickenpooper and the dem state senate/assembly and what they could do. They certainly could do all of the Kalifornia nonsense like bullet buttons and magazine limits. If that happens, I'll probably need to start checking out Wyoming property...

Singlestack

[sellersm]

Almost any of the TLAs (3 letter agencies) can come up with some new regulations/fees/taxes/you-name-it and effectively 'ban' anything! Got lead in your house? Bam! $100K fine!

Or, any EO can be written and signed. This guy doesn't care about the republic, the constitution or anything else, and the managers in DC have proven not to care about our freedoms...

Who knows, they may even start taxing boating accidents! [LOL]

[hollohas]

but how does he simply decree restrictions on high capacity magazines? He can't make law from whole cloth (yet).

They do these things without making new laws. Just look at the multiple long gun reporting in the SW. All he has to do is direct the ATF to change the rules and nobody blinks. They don't need the House. They don't need the Senate. They don't need laws. They simply DO what they want.

[Rucker61]

I wish they'd ban stupid people. Bam! Problem solved!

Banning would just make them illegal; it wouldn't get rid of them.

[Great-Kazoo]

3-5 day waiting period for CO . With the feeding frenzy of the gun owning and liberals who want but no one else, the documentation / facts will speak for Hick. All he has to do is show the CBI results from 12/14- when ever he decides what to do. he just says Look Gun owners were willing to wait 24-36 hours, VOLUNTARILY, for a gun purchase. Why not make it say 3-5 days as state law. How can anyone debate, you were willing to wait, X days now without it being a law.
Everything else is speculative and panic talk. EXPECT any law to be challenged. How much are you willing to donate for you freedom? That's where your true self will be challenged.
DEEDS NOT WORDS.

[centrarchidae]

Rep. Major Owen (D-NY) introduces it into every Congress.

It has never come to a vote, even during Democrat majorities.


random question, has anyone ever introduced an amendment to remove the second from the constitution? If so, how far did it get? I know it wouldn't get far now but just curious.

[JohnnyEgo]

The rush to the gun stores both scares me and gives me hope. On the one hand, more responsible gun owners means more people invested in keeping whatever they purchased from being banned for possession. On the other hand, a poster on a decidedly non gun-centric forum I frequent bought a case of PMAGs a week or two back. This same individual posted a reply today that he hoped the NRA would support a 30 round mag ban, presumably to boost the value of his investment.