Assault Weapons Ban

[Micahweeks]

Ok. On February 25, 2009 (just a few months ago), Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the Obama administration would be seeking to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. However, I have a few questions regarding this that I am hoping some who has done much more research than I have can answer.

1. The first job of any politician is to get re-elected (thank you Mr. Trim for that one!). Many propose that the reason that the democrats lost Congress in the 90s was because of people being extremely unhappy about the assault weapons ban. So, if Obama plans to get re-elected, why would he not distance himself from this issue?

2. If Obama is indeed going to push the AWB, what is he waiting for? It would only make sense to do it when his approval ratings are at their highest, indicating the most possible public support. His approval ratings continue to fall. If he were going to bring it before the Congress, what's the hold up?

3. Eric Holder claims that the reason for reinstating the AWB is to stop the flow of small arms to Mexico's drug cartels. He says that the Mexican police have encountered fully automatic assault rifle fire and hand grenades while attempting to stop the drug trafficking. Umm... how does the AWB stop that? Since when is any citizen capable of purchasing hand grenades? I don't remember any tax stamps that I can pay to get a frag grenade! For that matter, what FFL dealers sell automatic rifles to civilians? None around my town do.

4. Would it make sense to wait and see what effect, if any, the Washington D.C. ruling has on the crime rate there? If the crime rate in D.C. were to drop significantly following the ruling, Obama would have some pretty nasty egg on his face. Could this be why we've seen no serious, concerted effort to push the issue in the official sense, yet?

[5whiskey]

Obama himself has said several times that "I don't think we'll be able to do that" when asked about the AWB. It wound up being a long-winded response sympathizing with the anti-gun crowd, but ending it with basically saying that it's not feasible and political suicide (if you read between the lines).

The AWB isn't to be pushed for quiet some time, I don't think.

[Micahweeks]

I believe you are right about pushing the AWB being political suicide. I still wonder how the AWB is supposed to help stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades, though. That one is just confusing to me.

[COYOTE JLR]

As I recall, Holder was reprimanded for those statements. It doesn't seem like anything that they're going to be able or willing to push for. Its one of those topics that seems to (for the dems at least) have fallen out of interest.

And it wouldn't stop anything. And any serious politician would know that. I imagine that story is simply a device to convince the uneducated public to support them. Its a sad thing.

[J.Netto]

I don't think we have too much to worry about right now. - He would want to be re-elected.

If that happens, what about his next term?

Once he's in his second term, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's not like he's gonna care who he upsets, he's not going to care what people think of him, or how high his popularity rating is. Because, he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

They might be taking their time, or trying to be extremely quiet about how and when, But I guarantee they haven't forgot about us.

His second term is gonna be when we are all in trouble. Who knows? He could try to sign something into law next week.

The problem in Mexico is being used as an excuse to get all of this started. The first stepping stone. Take the blame off of himself, and put it somewhere else. He has to try to do something to get as many people on board before he attempts a AWB.:barf:

[armsmaster270]

They may get a few weapons from us but nothing like they get from other country's

[Amen]

Y'all forget that the President can not make the AWB happen. If it passes Congress he can sign it into law. So it does not matter if he wants it this week or in 7 years, he has to convince Congress who hear an awful lot from their constituents.

[Micahweeks]

True, Amen, but the president does have the ability to propose legislation for Congressional review. Several presidents have done this in the past. I was expecting as much from a man who was so vehemently supportive of the AWB when he was in Illinois. But, who knows? Maybe, for once in our lifetimes, a politician actually LEARNED from the past and decided that reinstating a failed piece of legislation wasn't worth being voted out of office at the next election. Maybe there is hope for the man? :rolleyes:

So the question has been answered about why I have heard nothing else from Obama about the issue. But, there is still the burning question of what Mexico police think the AWB is going to do to stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades.

[alloy]

Who would have thought he could take over the banks, limit executive pay, spend trillions based on printing press capacity, get a racist on the supreme court, fill a cabinet with tax evaders, nationalize the auto industry and turn over a large portion to the unions, bow to despots around the world, attempt to control the media thru fairness, redistrict based on Acorn's census, decide the investment positions of legit investors, ok Iranian nuclear power, personally back Chevrolet warranties, bash Israel, label 50% of US citizens as possible terrorists, have magazine editors call him God, get all roofs painted white, and still practice long-term selective hearing around domestic radicals. For now reason is out the window....he's just getting wound up good. If the teleprompter decides to inform him of some perceived firearm crisis...And so it is written, so let it be done. :)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So, if Obama plans to get re-elected, why would he not distance himself from this issue?

Look at Obama's past gun record and his past support for much more restictive legislation than the AWB? Did that stop him from losing swing states with large NRA membership like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida? It didn't; but it almost did - which is probably why you see Obama being much more ambivalent on this issue. He can't step away from it further without looking like a hypocrite; but he can't really afford to continue his past policy eother.

2. If Obama is indeed going to push the AWB, what is he waiting for? It would only make sense to do it when his approval ratings are at their highest, indicating the most possible public support. His approval ratings continue to fall. If he were going to bring it before the Congress, what's the hold up?

Without a Democratic Congress to back him up, Obama loses a lot of power. Some 67 Democrats in the House signed a letter opposing an AWB (primarily because that is the kind of thing that would cost them their seats in the 2010 midterm elections). Obama needs those votes for his post 2010 agenda and in the near term, making those Congressmen fall on their swords and accept an AWB is going to exact a high price on his current agenda.

Not to mention that if an AWB did make it through the House, Obama has just put his Senate Majority Leader and several prominent Dem Senators in a very awkward position of either publicly thwarting their party leader or facing a serious re-election battle in 2010. Also not a move calculated to win him support for his more controversial programs.

3.Umm... how does the AWB stop that?

As we all well know, Holder was speaking out of the wrong orifice. I would wager that many of the weapons traced to the United States did not come from gun shows but was Foreign Military Sales from the U.S. government to Mexico's law enforcement and police that later ended up in the hands of drug dealers.

4. Could this be why we've seen no serious, concerted effort to push the issue in the official sense, yet?

I doubt it. A more likely explanation is that pushing through legislation that is iffy on constitutionality (like an AWB) is best done when you have the Supreme Court stacked to your liking. Given the ruling in Heller, such a question would come before the same Justices who approved Heller. Nobody in the anti-gun movement wants that.

All in all, there are dozens of good political reasons not to have an AWB fight right now, even if you sincerely wanted such a law. On the flip side, the only good reason to have the fight now is that you don't believe you will ever have a better chance at it.

[Master Blaster]

I would wager that many of the weapons traced to the United States did not come from gun shows but was Foreign Military Sales from the U.S. government to Mexico's law enforcement and police that later ended up in the hands of drug dealers.


An you would be right, a while back there was a shootout between corrupt police and the military, pretty much all of the police in a particular town including the mexican Federales from that area worked for the drug cartel.

The weapons I saw which were confiscated were full auto M-16 of recent manufacture (FN) which are only availible to the military and police, and a whole bunch of what appeared to be FALs and HK 91s. While some of those guns ORIGINATED in the US (the factory is here) they sure didn't come from a gunshow or a private citizen, and FN sure didnt sell them under the table to mexican drug lords. The ATF knows full well those guns came from Mexican or US military arsenals or were sold legally to the mexican Police/military.

[4V50 Gary]

If the US gubmint wanted to keep selective fire M-16s out of the hands of the Mexican cartels, it'd ask the Mexican gubmint to stop its soldiers from deserting with their M-16s.

[Dustin0]

If Obama is going to to push for a AWB its going to be second term. IF he gets back in look out.

[maestro pistolero]

Who would have thought he could take over the banks, limit executive pay, spend trillions based on printing press capacity, get a racist on the supreme court, fill a cabinet with tax evaders, nationalize the auto industry and turn over a large portion to the unions, bow to despots around the world, attempt to control the media thru fairness, redistrict based on Acorn's census, decide the investment positions of legit investors, ok Iranian nuclear power, personally back Chevrolet warranties, bash Israel, label 50% of US citizens as possible terrorists, have magazine editors call him God, get all roofs painted white, and still practice long-term selective hearing around domestic radicals. For now reason is out the window....he's just getting wound up good. If the teleprompter decides to inform him of some perceived firearm crisis...And so it is written, so let it be done.

Geez, when you put it like that . . . .

[JWT]

Obama's record is one of strong support for gun control. He never met an anti-gun piece of legislation he didn't like. Gun control is not his priority at this time but once he gets through his other campaign promise priorities I do believe he'll go after guns. It's part of his ingrained Chicago heritage.

[Antipitas]

I'm divided.

The thread (and the questions posed by the OP) is purely political. As such, it is off topic.

We have made some exceptions in the recent past to allow certain political threads, because of their utility and usefulness.

A good discussion on why firearms control is not on the immediate agenda of the Obama Administration, can have an educating effect upon those that are not aware, but use knee-jerk reactionism in commenting upon the issues.

Then again, it could just as easily spiral down into the hell-hole that was the old L&P forum.

I'll let this one run for a bit. It will be up to you, the members of the Firing Line, to keep your comments, and this thread, on the high road.

Failure to do so will result in not just the thread being closed, but also the individuals who could not control themselves, being banned from TFL.

You are warned.

[peetzakilla]

I believe that the only reason he's not pushing the AWB is because Pelosi and others have stated that they will not support it. This I do not understand. They CLEARLY do support the ban. They have the ability to pass it, I believe. I don't know why they wouldn't. I'm glad, but I don't understand. I suppose it's probably because there may be a good number of dems who do not and will not support the ban and the leadership wants to look like a united party.

[hogdogs]

Failure to do so will result in not just the thread being closed, but also the individuals who could not control themselves, being banned from TFL.
:eek:
Are all loss of control "felony failure to self control" or are there some "misdemeanors"?:D
Brent

[Micahweeks]

My apologies, Anitipitas. I genuinely thought the thread would fall under the rules as it pertains to the AWB, since many believe it is a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. I misunderstood the rules.

[RedneckFur]

I personally feel that if any AWB is to be reinstated, It will either be done late in the current term, or in the next term, depending on how favorable the current admistration is just prior to the 2012 elections.

I dont think that we'll get away scott free, so to speak, but I dont think we'll see UK style draconian gun bans, just yet.

Most important thing any of us can do is to write and call our representatives on a regular basis, and let them know just how you feel.

[JWT]

Agree 100% with RedneckFur on the importance of writing, calling, or E-mailing, Senators and Representative to let them know you want them to respect 2A rights and oppose anti-gun legislation (including AWB) whenever it's introduced. It does have an impact.

[vranasaurus]

I believe that the only reason he's not pushing the AWB is because Pelosi and others have stated that they will not support it. This I do not understand. They CLEARLY do support the ban. They have the ability to pass it, I believe. I don't know why they wouldn't. I'm glad, but I don't understand. I suppose it's probably because there may be a good number of dems who do not and will not support the ban and the leadership wants to look like a united party.

You are correct that Pelosi would love nothing more than to bring the ban back. The problem is she does not have the ability to pass it. Too many house members from her party will not support the ban making it impossible for her to pass it. Even if she did have the votes in the house there is no way it gets past the senate, where even the majority leader will not support it. Why waste precious political capital on a bill that has almost no chance of getting passed, especially when she and the president need all of that political capital to use on other parts of their agenda which are far more important to them. Why alienate conservative democratic congressman whose support you'll need to pass health care, energy, environmental legislation?

[Micahweeks]

Well, there is catch. I have had classes on law and spent a little bit of time studying Constitutional law, and the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is this.

The people eligible to serve in the armed forces but not enlisted are considered by definition to be a "militia." According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one. So, militia is us, the citizens. We get the right to bear arms. However, the language of the document reserves the right of the federal government to see that we are "well regulated."

So, with that being said, I don't dislike EVERY form of gun "control." I do believe that the Federalists did not intend for granny to have a rocket launcher. So, I know that I probably made a ton of enemies by saying that I am not against EVERY form of regulation, but that is how I interpret the law. I don't see the need to own rocket launchers. I feel it is perfectly reasonable for citizens not to own hand grenades. I even feel that a background check is good regulation.

If you are inclined to read a rather lengthy analysis of the language of the 2nd Amendment, I had to write one a while back for a class. I posted it on my web site since it was pretty popular with my classmates.

http://www.micahweeks.com/?p=32

[vranasaurus]

The people eligible to serve in the armed forces but not enlisted are considered by definition to be a "militia." According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one. So, militia is us, the citizens. We get the right to bear arms. However, the language of the document reserves the right of the federal government to see that we are "well regulated."

Based upon the vocabulary of the day "well regulated" meant "well trained". It had nothing to do with gun control.

And your interpretation runs counter to the Supreme Court's interpretation. The right to keep and bear arms is independent of service in the militia.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Commas are used for a plethora of things in the English language.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Frankly, you should just pretty much read everything at www.guncite.com as it addresses most of the points you raised, many of which are not novel as they have been raised by gun control activists in the past.

I'd also note that the interpretations you suggested were among the many amicus briefs filed in Heller vs. D.C. and after persuasive arguments on both sides, there were no takers (even among the dissenting opinion) arguing for the interpretation you put forth.

Finally, I'd say that your link discussing Obama's view of the Second Amendment gives short shrift to the fact that Obama supported a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, even as the Heller case was being argued. He clearly wasn't relying on commas, well-regulated militias or anything else you suggest in your essay. He was flat out stating that only the National Guards and State Guards have any right to firearms under the Second Amendment.

[Micahweeks]

On the contrary. The definition of militia included any eligible to serve regardless whether or not they were serving.

As for my interpretation, you have to understand that my major at the time I wrote the above article was linguistics. My class examined this language several times and in great detail. All of our findings say that "well-regulated", in fact, meant just that. This was evidenced by the recorded discussions and discourse between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. You are correct that, in many cases, possibly most, the term was also used to refer to being well trained. The question is in which context was it used. Written records seem to indicate that regulation was the intent, although it is possible this is not case.

As for my interpretation not being in line with the Supreme Court's, I am well aware of that. I believe it to be a group of pundits using the position of justice to enforce personal moral codes and political agendas. So, yes. I'm in conflict with their interpretation. I find that they deliberately take the Constitution out of context quite often to accomplish personal ends. I don't want to veer off topic, but to cite one example, abortion was ruled constitutional based on your freedom of search of seizure. I'm not trying to debate abortion, here. I'm just using it as an example of how they have used bad law to make rulings. I believe that they, in the same way, make bad law rulings by using deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

All of this is the reason I wonder about the AWB. It is clearly not beyond the power of the federal government to regulate handguns, but the question is to what end? What is too much regulation? Obviously, as evidenced over a decade ago, the people felt the AWB was too much. So, where do we draw the line. I can't in good conscious say that ALL gun control measures are bad. Background checks are fine, to me, and prevent felons from purchasing handguns from local stores. My right to bear arms was not infringed by me having a background check run. The guns in my case state something quite contrary to that. How can we hope to appear reasonable if we would fight EVERY form of gun control or regulation regardless of how sensible it may seem?

[Micahweeks]

Well, Roberts, I certainly respect your opinion. You seem to be a learned, well-spoken citizen. :)

I understand all of the arguments put forth at guncite and have read them before. The problem is that linguistics doesn't really function properly if you use obviously biased sources for interpretation. To interpret the Constitution literally and in the context in which it was written requires that one throws out all current discussion on the matter and disregard passionate opinions. I have a very passionate opinion about the government trying to take my guns. From my cold, dead fingers. But, in an academic setting dealing with a scientific study of language, I can not include influence from guncite or any websites stating views contrary to that. I can only deal with the language, and, in the English language, commas change meaning easily.

I cite this example.

My dog bit John's girl. (Someone's dog took a bite out of John's child).

My dog bit John's, girl. (Someone speaking to a female and informing her that the dog bit John's dog.)

Or how about this one:

My dog hit that fool. (A dog possibly ran into a man?)

My dog, hit that fool. (An inner city thug ordering his buddy to strike someone).

My dog hit that, fool. (Another thug talking about how his friend had sex with someone, which introduces slang, an entirely different beast.)


As you can see, from an academic stand-point, someone studying linguistics can not ignore the commas. Thus, my essay's interpretation.

[peetzakilla]

As you can see, from an academic stand-point, someone studying linguistics can not ignore the commas. Thus, my essay's interpretation.

Actually, from an historical perspective you SHOULD ignore the commas. The most important fact, historically, about commas is that there was NO, NONE, NADA, standard usage at the time the constitution was written. There can be almost no weight placed on the use, lack thereof, or placement of commas on documents from the era of the Constitution. A comma at that time meant little more than an indication that the writer wanted a comma there because he thought it was pretty.

[vranasaurus]

When using the term well regulated with reference to the militia it most certainly meant well trained.

The 2A doesn't say anything about a well regulated right to keep and bear arms.

[Micahweeks]

Close, Peetzakiller.

You refer to the virgula suspensiva. This was a slash used until the early 17th century to indicate nothing more than a pause in speaking. However, that context applies to Greek, specifically, written forms originating around Byzantium. While the comma used in English did descend from the same mark, it was seeing standard usage rules as early as the 1620s in official documents. The question is whether or not a historical document is using the comma as a divider or as an indicator of pause in speaking, a use it no longer has. Since the Constitution was a purely written document and was not designed to be given as a speech, it is possible that the commas are meant for the purpose of dividing clauses. It is equally possible that they are just being used out of habit as a result of writing many speeches.

[Micahweeks]

Man, I sure love linguistics, but this is way off topic. I am really wanting to get to the bottom of the AWB. I just don't buy that it is a dead issue. Obama made to many statements supporting it to make me believe that. I also want to know how it could be brought up as a measure to stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades.

Well, here is another question along the lines of this thread. How much regulation is TOO much regulation? To what degree do you think regulation is permissible under the 2nd Amendment? Is the AWB all bad, or parts of it acceptable regulation? I don't think it is acceptable at all as it doesn't really accomplish anything, but someone may disagree.

[vranasaurus]

If you read Heller Scalia mentions "dangerous or unusual". Whether a ban on "assault weapons" were permissable would depend on if they were considered dangerous or unusual.

Judging by numbers in circulation "assault weapons" are not unusual at all. And they are certainly no more dangerous than any other firearm.

Some things obviously fit into the D/U castegory, some are on the line, and some are obviously not.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's substitue the term "well-regulated" with "heavily legislated" and see if the Second still makes any sense given the context it was written in.

A heavily legislated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So if we assume your comma argument as well, we now have:

A heavily legislated militia shall not be infringed.

Now please explain to me how this interpretation is supposed to assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists (the whole purpose of the Second Amendment after all)?

[5whiskey]

Well, here is another question along the lines of this thread. How much regulation is TOO much regulation?

Anytime the government tries to restrict Normal Law Abiding Citizens from possessing the tools in which we would need to forcibly take the government back for the people. It is assumed that we would be up against our own military, or whoever is left in the military that swears loyalty to the government and not the people. To that end, I feel that all man-portable small arms that are not explosive ordinance should be fair for us to possess that we may be competative should that need ever arise. Some would argue that we should be allowed to possess anything the government possesses... I'm not quiet in that ballpark or camp.


I do not have a problem with background checks. Heck, if they would regulate EBRs the same way they did pistols I wouldn't really have any strokes over it. The only major issue is this... it's pretty much proven fact that assault weapons are used in less than 1% of violent crimes. Do the benefits REALLY outweigh the risks? (stopping 1 murder per year vs. having the tools to keep government honest).



In the end, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not calling for a revolution, nor am I suggesting that the time to rise against the government is near, is coming, or should ever come. All I am saying is that supporting documents to the constitution give exact basis as to why we should have the RKBA. It's pretty pervasive throughout GW, TJ, TP, BF, and other signers of the documents' writings.

[peetzakilla]

Since the Constitution was a purely written document and was not designed to be given as a speech, it is possible that the commas are meant for the purpose of dividing clauses. It is equally possible that they are just being used out of habit as a result of writing many speeches.

In other words, what I said. There was no standard usage. If there was then we would SURELY know the intent thereof in a document as important as the basis for an entire nation.


To answer your question about "What is acceptable?" Very little is acceptable. I would be no more dangerous with a rocket launcher than I am with a BB gun. A background check to verify a history of lawfulness (which of course is no guarantee of tomorrow), is the only acceptable limitation. Cash flow would limit the vast majority of weapons, regardless. What would be the purpose of limiting, for instance, the ownership of M1 tanks? VERY, very few people could afford one, let alone the fuel and shells. Those with that level of cash, who complete the background check, are pretty friggin' unlikely to start blasting away in downtown LA.

[Micahweeks]

5whiskey, I kind of feel the way you do.

The biggest part of the AWB that I don't understand is the magazine capacity restriction. Let's say my carry gun hold 15 rounds in the mag. Well, now there is a restriction to 10. If I wanted to carry 30 rounds, I would carry two mags pre-ban or three mags post-ban. It doesn't really do anything.

I think, and I may be wrong, the logic behind things like prohibiting rocket launchers and tanks is that you want to prevent a criminal with vast amounts of cash (drug cartel leaders, mafias, etc.) from being able to outfit their own personal militant groups. Now, you say that is the point of the background check, but some of these higher ups in the crime syndicates have never been convicted, only investigated or suspected. That has always been my understanding why citizens can not buy things like rocket launchers.

[44 AMP]

the comma.... as an indicator of pause in speaking, a use it no longer has.

I claim no great expertise in linguistics, being only a humble graduate of public school in the 1970s, BUT, at that time, and as far as I can tell, ever since, the comma's most common usage is as a visual indication of a pause in speaking.

Now while the comma has been determined to have other usages, particularly in parsing legal phrases, at the time the Constitution was written, I believe that it had no such significance.

I have a fine old geography book (an original), printed in May 1803, in Boston. The language used, both in spelling and punctuation is noticeably different from what is in common usage today. Therefore, I find that any attempt to apply the standards in use today to the language of the past is a serious error. As noted, there were several different usages common in the past, and no single standard that they were, or could be held to.

I find myself in basic agreement with the Heller ruling, stating that the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment is an explanation of why the right is important, and not a requirement for the right to exist.

I am in agreement with the proper role of government being able to regulate the ownership of certain things that fall under the general description of "arms". Where I disagree with many is which "arms" should be regulated, and how much.

And I am in complete disagreement with outright prohibitions, particularly when ordinary small arms are concerned. I find the govt. believing it to be right and proper that they can tell you that you cannot own a springloaded metal box above a certain size repugnant.

[Micahweeks]

I'm not applying the comma as it used today to a centuries old document. I already clarified that the comma was used to separate clauses as early as the 1600s. It would be foolish to apply today's grammar to something two hundred years old.

I do like your stance, 44, on reasonable regulation. Would you care to clarify just what types of firearms should or should not be regulated in your opinion?

[44 AMP]

And bear in mind that my opinions were formed because I am on of those people who was interested in firearms before 1968.

In general, I accept the system as we now have it, instant background checks and all, mostly because there simply isn't any other choice. However, I still remember those days before passage of the GCA 68, when one could order a long gun or handgun, direct through the mail, with no background check, or other form of govt. approval needed, or involved. And personally, I don't see why we couldn't manage with the rules as we had them in those days. I don't see where we are any "safer" now than we were then. I believe that one should be allowed to own guns without special classifications because of their caliber or action type. And this include full auto firearms.

I also believe that misuse of those items should bring the law down on you like the hammer of the Gods. And for those that commit murder (meaning killing for personal profit or emotional satisfaction) should face the rope, the firing squad, or the gas chamber. And even guillotine is not too extreme in my view. And that it shouldn't take decades to have the sentence carried out.

I do believe that arms firing explosive projectiles, rockets, and bombs (again, explosives) should be held to tighter standards of examination than ordinary small arms. But that citizens with no legal prohibition (such as a criminal record) ought to be allowed to own such items, once such a condition is established.

In the last hundred or so years, we have changed from a society where evil doers were heavily and publically punished, with the rest of us basically free, to one where evil doers are less heavily punished and the rest of us heavily regulated. I would personally prefer things the way they were in my grandfather's day, as pertaining to gun ownership, when one could walk into the hardware store, put doen the cash and walk out with a Tommygun, a pistol, or dynamite, if that what you wanted and could afford.

But I know we aren't going back to those days, if for no other reason than both personal responsibility and permanent punishment seem to have gone out of style.

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm all for an "Assault Weapons Ban"... for a certain definition of "assault weapon" that is mostly already covered by existing law, and doesn't actually need a separate ban. I'm a Democrat, always have been... and I remember screaming at the TV a few times during various Congressional discussions. For the love of ^%$&, can't the politicians find a single person who actually knows what an "assault weapon" is?!?!

It is like when I was watching Time Warp last night, and they referred to 5.56 M4 carbine as a "Machine Gun"... really? You couldn't do any research? None?

[44 AMP]

and what you think they mean, as opposed to what others think the same term actually means.

"Assault weapons" are semi automatic firearms, with certain combinations of cosmetic features. This was defined in law, in 1994!

"Assault rifles" is a definition used in the military and firearms world, and was basically defined in 1944, by Adolph Hitler!

"Machine gun" is also a legal term, defined in law, back in 1934!

I'm all for an "Assault Weapons Ban"... for a certain definition of "assault weapon" that is mostly already covered by existing law,

And just what "Assault weapons" would those be, Joe?

they referred to 5.56 M4 carbine as a "Machine Gun"...

Any firearm that has a full auto capability is a machine gun, under US law.

I suggest you do some further research, and reconsider the accuracy of your opinions.

[bikerbill]

I think you folks are looking at the wrong problem ...

Obama doesn't need the AWB ... the interamerican treaty that's been unratified for several years just needs to slide through the Demo majority Senate and the dirty work is all but done ... or the UN gun-banners, who finally have a sympathetic ear in the white house, will work their magic ..

And those who are expecting rationality from politicians are in for a sad awakening ... no such thing ... you can truck out all the stats you want showing how much better citizens CHL holders are and how crime has plunged in states with a shall issue law ... if that worked, it would have worked already ...

I personally think our gun rights are teetering on the edge ... two appeals courts have already rejected the 9th's ruling that Heller applies to the states ... including the 2nd, from where we will soon be seeing Sotomayor departiing for the Scotus ...

got a note today from a knife group I belong to ... some fed agency is considering an action which would outlaw all onehand opening knives ... that would leave you with your boyscout knife and a sharp stick ..

I'm very pessimistic ... if the right doesn't regain control of Congress in 2010, I think we're doomed ... they'll pick and poke, ammo taxes, serial numbers on each round, this gun restricted, that one can't be imported ... Congress isn't the only way we can lose our rights and I think that's what Obama and his leftie flunkies are planning ... time will tell ...

[cbrgator]

That treaty has no shot at passing. Gun Rights are pushing forward full speed ahead right now. There is no appetite for gun control legislation, ESPECIALLY one as sweeping as that treaty. Don't be paranoid. Be weary and vigilant, but not paranoid.

[carguychris]

Obama doesn't need the AWB ... the interamerican treaty that's been unratified for several years just needs to slide through the Demo majority Senate and the dirty work is all but done ... or the UN gun-banners, who finally have a sympathetic ear in the white house, will work their magic ..
An outright gun or ammo ban like the one in the treaty would fail so spectacularly that it would make Prohibition look like a walk in the park. Senators voting for the gun-banning treaty would have to face the music when they're up for re-election. The Senate has a larger number of members from pro-gun states than the House since pro-gun states outnumber anti-gun states. Those senators are not going to commit political suicide for reasons of party loyalty.
And those who are expecting rationality from politicians are in for a sad awakening ... no such thing ... you can truck out all the stats you want showing how much better citizens CHL holders are and how crime has plunged in states with a shall issue law ... if that worked, it would have worked already ...
I think that the Democratic Party's recent sweep of the Presidency, House, and Senate is the result of a very rational strategy wherein the party has emphasized moderate positions that appeal to independent voters. This strategy is borne out by party leaders' refusal to use gun control as a litmus test in deciding which candidates to back for congressional seats.

It's very difficult to prove that shall-issue CHL laws are in any way responsible for the drop in crime in shall-issue states. This has been recently discussed in other LACR threads. I strongly support shall-issue CHL laws for protection of myself, but IMHO the overall effect on crime is debatable.
I personally think our gun rights are teetering on the edge ... two appeals courts have already rejected the 9th's ruling that Heller applies to the states ... including the 2nd, from where we will soon be seeing Sotomayor departiing for the Scotus ...
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered the most liberal court in the country, recently backed incorporation with the Nordyke decision. Furthermore, the recent 7th Circuit anti-incorporation decision used shaky logic that can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to punt the case to the SCOTUS.
That treaty has no shot at passing. Gun Rights are pushing forward full speed ahead right now. There is no appetite for gun control legislation, ESPECIALLY one as sweeping as that treaty. Don't be paranoid. Be weary and vigilant, but not paranoid.
I'm with him. The recent direction of U.S. gun rights has me encouraged, albeit not quite ecstatic. :)

[Ian0351]

I believe within a few days of the statement referenced in the OP there was a press conference with B'Obama and Dianne Feinstein stating that they had informed Mr. Holder to "Enforce the laws that are on the books"; while reminding the audience that it was the job of Congress (and most certainly Mrs. Feinstein herself) to pursue such avenues of legislation.

[Micahweeks]

44, that was a good read! Well spoken, and fair enough. I, like you, don't think it will ever happen, but I wouldn't mind it at all! And ditto on the death penalty. We have gotten to soft.

As for me, the problem I had with the first AWB was not even the definition of an "assault weapon." Folding stocks? The guns are easier to be accurate and deadly with when aimed and fired from the shoulder. High capacity? Fine. Limit my mags to 10. I'll just carry one more than usual. Same number of rounds on my belt. It just didn't make sense and didn't really accomplish anything to me other than wasting my tax money to hear Congress debate about it when none of them knew jack about firearms.

[RDak]

Sorry to change the subject but here's a link to the actual letter 23 State Attorney Generals sent to Eric Holder:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/SemiAutostateAGsLetter061109.pdf

We have been winning so BIG in the last year that someone simply has to pinch me. I MUST be DREAMING!!!! :D

[Tom Servo]

And a letter from 65 Congressional Democrats (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf).
We have been winning so BIG in the last year that someone simply has to pinch me.
Very true. We've swayed a large portion of the legal and academic communities into reading the 2nd Amendment literally. Even if they don't know the specifics, the general public now knows that the original AWB was hooey.

We've finally received a Supreme Court ruling that dispels the "collective rights" interpretation of the 2A. The 9th Circuit (that's California, folks) has ruled that the 14th incorporates the 2nd against the States, and the issue is now headed to the Supreme Court. We have some amazing legal talent on our side.

As little as 15 years ago, none of this would have ever been conceivable.

We're living under an administration whose prior words and actions betray a serious fetish for gun control, yet they're terrified to say anything about it in public, and they're quick to reprimand those who do. Remember how both Democratic candidates fell over each other professing their "support" for the 2A last campaign.

...and you wanna know why the DC Voting Rights bill hasn't passed yet? :cool:

We're in hostile waters politically, but we're actually making gains, and that's what we need to be focused on: supporting those who are making this possible.

[BuckHammer]

There is not going to be an AWB or any other gun or ammo ban. Now please sell back the ammunition and reloading supplies that you've been hoarding. (That is not necessarily to the OP or any other specific person. The people that my message applies to know who they are.)

[vranasaurus]

There is not going to be an AWB or any other gun or ammo ban. Now please sell back the ammunition and reloading supplies that you've been hoarding. (That is not necessarily to the OP or any other specific person. The people that my message applies to know who they are.)

I think you are correct for at least the next 3-4 years. That doesn't mean we need to be any less vigilant.

[reloaderNOOB]

i read somewhere that the brady bunch and the illustrious Ms. Clinton (thats the one, right?) "cited" a "source" that claimed 90% of the guns used against police and govt in mexico by cartels came from USA. The REAL number is 17%... and how many of that 17% were Foreign Military Sales?