(The assault weapon ban) and other thoughts

[speed]

I questioned members on one of my recent post's...(warning heavy topic) about the assault weapons ban.

I asked whether they saw it coming . I must admit that when it happend I was not much more than an occasional recreational shooter so I was not too affected by the new laws.

I'll ask again,did you hear about it while it was brewing? did you find out about it at the last minute?How did it effect you? Do you think in hindsight that if you were more active polliticaly at the time you could have prevented it?

Are there any other proposed anti-gun laws that those who are not as active as others should know about?

Is this every man or woman for himself, or is there some things that are at present time on the top of the list of must know issues?

Fill me in.

///////////////speed/////////////////////////////

[RikWriter]

I saw the AWB coming for five years and bought mags accordingly. Right now, I forsee a federal ban on private sales within the next four or five years, and possibly a ban on 50 BMGs within that same period.

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

I see "smart gun" technology being forced down everybodys throat inthe next 5 to 6 years in the name of safety. Private sales will also go BYE-BYE.

[Scott Conklin]

I believe there's far worse coming within a period of five years. I'll accept that we might have until the second year of the admin of the Dem who arrives on the scene when Bush finishes his second term but that's the maximum limit. What is that, 8 years? By then if you still legally ahve a .22 you'll be damn lucky.

The AWB is what woke me up to this issue. I really thought it would end up dead but instead we're still living with it.

[Zundfolge]

So at what point do we say enough is enough and turn our guns on the government?

Is the 2nd amendment not the line in the sand?

if not then what is?

[jimpeel]

I knew about, and fought against, the assault weapon ban for a couple of years prior to its enactment. Unfortunately, the AWB was not the worst part of the 1994 crime bill.

While we were being distracted by the media over magazine sizes and assault weapons, the bill also contained other, more ominous, passages.

The Crime Bill reads like a declaration of war. The "60 new death penalty crimes" cited in the Crime Bill are for such things as plane wrecking, train wrecking, bridge wrecking, attacking political figures, etc. these are the types of activities that occur during an insurrection. In other words, if you do what the founders said you could do when we become unmanageable, we will kill you.

The most ominous portion of the crime Bill, however, is Sec.90107. Violent crime and drug emergency areas

This section allows the President of the United States to declare any city, town, county, state or territory a violent crime and drug emergency area and place that area under direct federal control. During the time that this area is under federal control (one year renewable) the Attorney General will have virtual lawmaking authority. I will reprint the pertinent sections in the next post.

[jimpeel]

SEC. 90107. VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.-In this section-

"major violent crime or drug-related emergency" means an occasion or
instance in which violent crime, drug smuggling, drug trafficking, or drug
abuse violence reaches such levels, as determined by the President, that
Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and
capabilities to save lives, and to protect property and public health and
safety.

"State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.

(b) DECLARATION OF VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS.-If a major
violent crime or drug-related emergency exists throughout a State or a part
of a State, the President may declare the State or part of a State to be a
violent crime or drug emergency area and may take appropriate actions
authorized by this section.

(c) PROCEDURE.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-A request for a declaration designating an area to be a
violent crime or drug emergency area shall be made, in writing, by the chief
executive officer of a State or local government, respectively (or in the
case of the District of Columbia, the mayor), and shall be forwarded to the
Attorney General in such form as the Attorney General may by regulation
require. One or more cities, counties, States, or the District of Columbia
may submit a joint request for designation as a major violent crime or drug
emergency area under this subsection.

(2) FINDING.-A request made under paragraph (1) shall be based on a
written finding that the major violent crime or drug-related emergency is of
such severity and magnitude that Federal assistance is necessary to ensure an
effective response to save lives and to protect property and public health
and safety.

(d) IRRELEVANCY OF POPULATION DENSITY.-The President shall not limit
declarations made under this section to highly populated centers of violent
crime or drug trafficking, drug smuggling, or drug use, but shall also
consider applications from governments of less populated areas where the
magnitude and severity of such activities is beyond the capability of the
State or local government to respond.

(e) REQUIREMENTS.-As part of a request for a declaration under this
section, and as a prerequisite to Federal violent crime or drug emergency
assistance under this section, the chief executive officer of a State or
local government shall-

(1) take appropriate action under State or local law and furnish
information on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have
been or will be committed to alleviating the major violent crime- or
drug-related emergency;

(2) submit a detailed plan outlining that government's short- and
long-term plans to respond to the violent crime or drug emergency, specifying
the types and levels of Federal assistance requested and including explicit
goals (including quantitative goals) and timetables; and

(3) specify how Federal assistance provided under this section is intended
to achieve those goals.

(f) REVIEW PERIOD.-The Attorney General shall review a request submitted
pursuant to this section, and the President shall decide whether to declare a
violent crime or drug emergency area, within 30 days after receiving the
request.

(g) FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.-The President may-

(1) direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize
its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including
personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, financial assistance, and
managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support of State and local
assistance efforts; and

(2) provide technical and advisory assistance, including communications
support and law enforcement-related intelligence information.

(h) DURATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Federal assistance under this section shall not be
provided to a violent crime or drug emergency area for more than 1 year.

(2) EXTENSION.-The chief executive officer of a jurisdiction may apply to
the President for an extension of assistance beyond 1 year. The President may
extend the provision of Federal assistance for not more than an additional
180 days.

(i) REGULATIONS.-Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Attorney General shall issue regulations to implement this
section.

(j) NO EFFECT ON EXISTING AUTHORITY.-Nothing in this section shall
diminish or detract from existing authority possessed by the President or
Attorney General.

[Indy_SIG]

So at what point do we say enough is enough and turn our guns on the government?

How about turning on our political and economic power instead? We won't change these laws, and the tide, overnight.

It will take generations of teaching....young people grow up to be adults. Teach them what you want them to know at an early age and they'll make the laws you want as adults.

This means some well-funded gun rights groups had better start using their cash hoard to truly influence people, especially young people, and do less ego and power building (yes, a thinly veiled slap at the NRA).

We always start at a disadvantage when fighting the outlets of information. The media doesn't like us. The NEA and others don't like us either. We will need to work very intelligently and, yes, it will cost a fortune.

We can start by avoiding looking like a bunch of hooligans.

[jimpeel]

If anyone would like a full text copy of Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, also known as the CONFERENCE REPORT ON HR3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993 (As passed by the House on August 21, 1994 and subsequently approved by the Senate on August 25, 1994) send me your e-mail address and I will send you a copy. Zipped, the file is about 315K.

[Tamara]

If anyone would like a full text copy of Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994,

I remember reading the final version right after they passed it; it left me a frothing, tinfoil-beanie-wearing, black-helicopter-dodging loonie for a good six months. There are just some really creepy Nacht und Nebel provisions in that bill; stuff that makes the 10-round magazine bit look anarchist by comparison.

Not sure if I'm up to reading the whole thing again; the bit above has caused severe enough flashbacks that I'm typing this one-handed from under my desk with a drawn gun in the other hand.

[Jamie Young]

In America we are too well armed. Most of our Local LEO's and National Guard would be out gunned by the Civilian Population unless they used A-10's and Apaches against us. If they Physically tried to take guns away from people you would have CIVIL WAR. One of My best friends Cousins is a Local LEO here, and I've been informed of what kind of toys they have in their arsenals. A bunch of M-16's

Between the 12 guys I go shooting with in My area we have 4x's the FirePower and skill of My entire Local Police Department. My Local Police Department is the largest in the State of Pennsylvania. WHO'S GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS??????????????
Besides I got friends who are LEO's

I would think with another Clinton like administration in charge, our Military Leaders would turn on the Government, with Popular Support.

[Thairlar]

I've heard about a survey conducted by the military asking if they would compy if ordered to disarm the populace. Did this survey actually take place? If it did, are the results known or are they classified?

[Zorro]

A bunch of M-16's

The Local ownership of 12 Gauge Shotguns is more lethal!

[jimpeel]

Did this survey actually take place? If it did, are the results known or are they classified?

Yes, this did, indeed take place. The New American Magazine did a writeup on that survey and explained quite a bit about it.

The survey was called "Combat Arms Survey" and was administered to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC's Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, CA on May 10, 1994.

Each question on the survey was to be answered from the following choices:

Strongly Agree
Agree
No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

The question on the survey that caused all of the uproar, and was lampooned by the Marines that took the survey, was question 46. Question 46 reads:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

42.3% Strongly Disagreed
19.3% Disagreed
12.0% had No Opinion
18.6% Agreed
7.6% Strongly Agreed

The survey was for the 197 page masters thesis of Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham.

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61% of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

There is more to this story but I am a hunt-n-pecker and I don't have a scanner or I would send you a copy. The article may still be out there in the ether at the New American website. Go there and search on "Twenty-Nine Palms". The name of the article was "Twenty-Nine Palms Survey: What Really Motivated Its Author?"

This article was in the Special Report on Michael New entitled "I am not a UN soldier. Additional copies are available from the New American at 2 for $1.00. Other quantity discounts are also available. You may order thes from:

American Opinion Book Services
Reprints Dept.
Appleton, WI 54913-8040
Ph: 414-749-3783

[Carbon_15]

When I enlisted in the Marines among the hundreds of questionairs and forms I filled, I remeber reading a question asking if i would follow an order to fire on American civilians. I wrote-in something to the effect of "if given an order to open fire on civilians not enguaging in violent hostile activites which threatend my life or the life of other around, the officer giving that order be considered in violation of numerous federal laws and the U.C.M.J and would be the recipiant of any fireing I took place in. Furthermore why would the U.S. military, which is prohibited from domestic police actions, be in a situation where gunning down civilians was neccisary." Not really sure of the reasoning behind the question (very little that is asked durring enlistment can be taken at face value) but it really got my dander up.

If its time to bury your guns, perhaps its time to dig them up!!

[Deadman]

What if U.S. LEO and military personnel are not used in the confiscation of firearms?

What if during the later stage of this 'war on terror' so many U.S. Mil. personnel are stationed in places such as Afghanistan, the Philippines, Somalia etc that the U.N. decides to bring in foreign troops to oversee the confiscation of firearms?

Sure you would all be less worried about shooting foreign troops, but they'd of course also be less worried about shooting you...

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where instead of China invading the U.S. ( Red Dawn style ), Chinese troops are invited to turn the U.S. into a police state on behalf on the U.N.
Along with there N.Korean, Russian, Cuban, Mexican, European, Zimbabwean counterparts......

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not going to send in the soldiers until most of the guns have been turned in "voluntarily". Here's how I'd do it:

First, you don't start until you're really confident you know who most of the gun owners are.

First thing you do is outlaw all firearms sports, so there's nothing to DO with a gun that doesn't land you in jail. That way you know that anyone seen with a gun is a criminal, and you've taken all the positive, enjoyable things about gun ownership away.

Second, you pass a law making it illegal to employ a known gun owner. You might be willing to fire on soldiers going door to door, but are you going to shoot your boss because he regretfully lets you go? Naturally, you can get off that list by turning in all your guns, and submitting to a thurough search of your property.

Third, institute a BIG reward program for snitches who turn in gun owners.

Forth, presume anybody who publicly objects to this is a gun owner, at treat them accordingly. That way you don't have to worry about dissenters attacking what you're doing.

When there's no use for guns except killing people, when everyone around you is a potential snitch, and you can't even put food on the table if your suspected of owning a gun, the number of gun owners will decline to the point where going after them with soldiers is practical.

As always, finding out who owns the guns is the first step, which MUST be taken before the others. THAT is the line in the sand we have to defend.

[T.Stahl]

There are ~278M people living in the USA. How many of them own firearms? How many UN-soldiers do you think it would take to take their guns away from them? And where do you think the UN could get that many soldiers?
The UN disarming US-citizens will not happen.

As for me, I doubt that the UN would come to Germany to disarm the ~4.5M gun-owners we have. The only ones we, you and I, have to fear, are our own governments. But there's one thing your and my politicians fear - not getting (re-)elected!

AFAIK, one-issue-voting was invented in the USA. Now German gun-owners have adopted it. Guess what? It seems to work.

Legal gun-owners are mainstays of the society. They abide and respect the law, they are socially engaged and they vote!

Who will receive my vote in the next elections will depend on this one issue. And I will make sure that not only I vote that way, but also the rest of my family...

[trapshooter]

The number of blue helmets required to disarm the citizenry of the US will equal the number of blue coffins required for return to country of origin.

[55645]

"They" will probably never have to come to your door. After the guns are registered and gunowners are sufficiently marginalized, you'll receive a letter informing you that you must turn in firearms numbered AW116543, HG 6759022 and so on. Let's assume that you ignore this letter. In six months you'll receive another informing you that if the aforementioned firearms are not received by a date certain there will be a felony (all gun offences will, of course, be felonies)warrant issued for your arrest. Normal people cannot live with a warrant out for their arrest.
If you don't want to live like some Bonnie & Clyde desperado, you'll turn 'em in.

[Scott Conklin]

I'd agree with the wear-us-down approach except that the US is the last brick in the wall of a Globalist government. This is all about Globalism(and those who immediately want to go into knee-jerk mode and start squealing Conspiracy, give it a rest. One World Governance is just the next step in human government evolution, nothing mystical about it)and I frankly believe their patience is wearing a little thin.

If the Socialists believe we are in a sufficiently weakened position that they can handle opposition via media propaganda THAT is when they will move. Dead troops or dead LEO's or dead "citizens" will be no more a consideration in this than in any other war.

But in the end, even if it is Incrementalism that they use, I'll live Bonnie & Clyde style. Not for the guns but for what their loss represents: Submission to an illegal and amoral "authority". That's not a Rambo reaction, either. It's just the only choice I see available since any other I can't imagine living with.

[Jamie Young]

I worry about the Turn in your Neighbor approach. I think thats the only way they could do it. But, Like I said....... It would turn into a Civil War because People like us would move an band together.

[geegee]

The "Turn in Your Neighbor" threat really gives me something to consider. I think of a neighbor who has a couple of daughters, one just out of college, the other who just started. The older one often goes to shoot skeet with her father, and has told me she wants to get a CHL. Her mother once made a passing comment to me however that I think illiustrates part of our problem. It was something along the lines of "We shoot skeet...but we're not one of those HANDGUN type families." Uh, that would be me and my family, across the street.

That's an attitude that is too pervasive. There are approximately 80mm gun owners, yet many believe there is (or should be) some type of class distinction among gun owners. In other words, the civilized citizenry own longguns, the rabble-rousing-militia types own handguns. I'm sure by now most here have seen the NRA film on the loss of gun owner rights in England, New Zealand, and Canada. It started the same way.

Another very basic problem that once corrected, would help our cause is NRA membership. With 80mm gun owners, how come we have (on a good day) maybe 4mm NRA members? Here again , many gun owners see us as part of the problem-we're the extremists, not willing to give up our dangerous "black rifles". Yeah, like their over and unders will be any safer when the dust settles.

Politics notwithstanding, I have to believe the one single event that will shape the 2nd Amendment discussion for years to come, will be the way our government's "war on terrorism" is prosecuted. For being a decorated Marine combat veteran, Tom Ridge is not someone we can take for granted as a supporter. You would think someone in the position of Director of Homeland Security would see the benefit to his country of an armed population (I wonder if he has a counterpart in Israel?), but unfortunately, I don't think Mr. Ridge sees it that way. geegee

[Zundfolge]

n America we are too well armed. Most of our Local LEO's and National Guard would be out gunned by the Civilian Population unless they used A-10's and Apaches against us. If they Physically tried to take guns away from people you would have CIVIL WAR.

If that where really the case then why isn't Illinois a war zone now ... they are basically going door to door confiscating weapons now.


I think it will take Americans being rounded up and put in camps before the American people will consider revolution ... we will have long been disarmed by then.

EDIT: Sorry if I sound less then optomistic ... maybe I'm just in a bad mood ... I pray that I am wrong

[AmericaFirst]

The enormous erosion of our freedoms has come during the watch of Bush. Pretty fascinating to see a people cheering their own freedoms being extinguished.