This, my friends is primarily a gun blog that occasionally delves into First Amendment and other Constitutional issues. But first and foremost, it is a gun blog.
So what does having a Democrat controlled Congress, and an Administration lead by President Bush mean to gun owners?
Here are my thoughts:
1. I expect to see a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban coming down the pike fairly quickly. The Democrats were not happy to see the sunset of the AWB, and they will be quick to try and get it back on the books. During his first campaign, President Bush promised to sign the AWB if it came across his desk. I fully expect him to keep that promise and sign a new AWB.
2. Next on the list will be closing the “Gun Show Loop Hole”. Now we all know that there is no such thing as a “gun show loop hole”, but that phrase has made it into the psyche of the American public. Even though all gun shows follow all state and federal firearm laws, they have been vilified by the press and the anti gunners. They want gun shows closed, period. Expect this to become a big issue, we will see calls for a national waiting period on all firearms sales, and a requirement that all firearms sales go through a licensed FFL dealer.
3. The Brady Bunch are chomping at the bit to get started on more “Common-Sense Gun Laws”. You know, the above mentioned AWB and waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and most importantly, a National Firearms Registry for all handguns. They are feeling pretty bold at the moment, and have lots of support in the legislature. Just remember which California city Nancy Pelosi represents. From the Brady website:
Candidates supporting a common sense approach to gun violence prevention did very well. In races where the Brady Campaign endorsed candidates went head-to-head with competing candidates endorsed by the NRA, Brady won 5 of 5 Governorships (Patrick in MA, O’Malley in MD, Rendell in PA, Doyle in WI, and Blagojevich in IL) and 4 of 4 U.S. Senate seats (Cardin in MD, Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in MI, and Nelson in FL). Candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign won over 95% of their races.4. If an Assault Weapons Ban slides through easily, and they close the “gun show” loophole, expect the idea of taxing ammunition out of existence to re-emerge. I really doubt that this will happen while Bush is President, but it will be on the back burner waiting for an opportune moment to raise its ugly head once again.
This is what I fully expect to see coming down the pike from a Democrat led Congress. They might try to add restrictions to what they consider arsenals, but I do not think it will happen in the near future. I do not have much hope in the President using his veto pen on much of this legislation either. We have made some good gains these past few years, but I am afraid that they are just temporary.
Gun Owners of America has a slightly different take on the consequences of this election, you can read it here.
13 comments:
I'd say you're exactly right on all points, I'm just not so sure I agree that it's a bad thing.
Items 1, 2 and 3 on the list are already in effect in California. These laws have done nothing to stop criminals, nothing at all. All they have done is disarm law abiding citizens and make them easy prey for the goblins, or turn those who believe in the constitution and the second amendment into criminals.
These laws take away from our freedoms and liberties and do open the door to totalitarianism.
Not only are they unconstitutional, they are unethical and immoral.
I disagree that it has done "nothing to stop criminals." Mrs. Harris wasn't a criminal before she shot Dr. Tarnhower.
I disagree that those 3 items disarm anyone. It regulates, it doesn't disarm. I live in California, and I know pleanty of people who love and own guns. Nobody's been disarmed. Don't go all Henny Penny, the sky is falling.
We need to track not only the guns, but the bullets, so that we can catch criminals when they use guns illegally.
I disagree that to regulate guns is unamerican, unconstitutional, etc. I think the laws are not only constitutional, but comman sense.
it doesn't disarm.
Maybe not yet, but you know there are people in California who would love to do just that, and the laws like this really do little more than desensitize the public to ever more "common-sense" gun laws, right on up to and including confiscation. And when these "common-sense" laws do little to nothing to reduce crime, you'll see the gun-haters clamor to ratchet the laws up to ever yet more restrictive levels, and that cycle will continue right on up...
I'm not buying into slippery slope arguments.
I'm not buying into slippery slope arguments.
How conveniently you dismiss them out of hand. I only hope to never, ever have to say, "I told you so." The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and there are none so blind as those who flatly refuse to see that. I believe Lt. Col. Dave Grossman would call those people sheep.
I believe that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of being vigilant is the ability to track guns and bullets.
The old canard about defending yourself from the government, our wonderfully constructed government, is that it's an outmoded idea. We'd all have to have our own tanks and bombs in that case.
We need to live up to the spirit of the 2nd amendment (not just the 2nd, btw) but we need to do it in a modern, practical way.
Ma'am, tracking ammo is just feel good legislation that will have absolutely no effect on violent crime.
Why don't we take violent criminals out of society? Why do we keep making excuses for them in our court system, giving them lite sentences, and releasing them back into society?
Criminals will not use your imprinted ammo. They will not use your "smart" guns. Only law abiding citizens will. This imprinted ammo, or smart gun will cost much more than current guns. Low income folks will not be able to legally defend themselves. That is immoral.
Not true. Tracking ammo and guns leads to the arrest of criminals. It's done all the time in law enforcement in states, like NY that allow it. It doesn't stop crime, but it helps you to find the criminals after the crime has been commited. Come on!!! It's really just a matter of comman sense, not to mention an aspect of the science of criminology.
Short sentances are not a function of gun regulation. I agree, someone who commits a crime with a gun should go to jail for life. Don't conflate the issues. Apples and oranges.
Personally, I think that anyone who attempts to commit a crime with a gun should be shot dead by whomever said goblin is trying to commit the crime against, but something tells me saying that out loud is basically introducing a paradigm shift much too big, and I really don't want to get accused of "conflating" any issues, so I think I'll just stop here. But as far as the whole "ballistic fingerprinting" nonsense, anyone who really believes that's any kind of viable solution would be well-served indeed by reading this.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems to me that if you want to limit gun ownership, you're going to have to amend that pesky Bill of Rights, otherwise it's unconstitutional.
I'd hate to see it happen though. We banned guns here 10 years ago, and the trend gun crime did NOT change (per 10 year study results released recently). All it does it make citizens into victims of criminals and the government.
Given the choice, I'd rather carry a gun, knowing I can meet a mugger or rapist or murderer on equal terms, than hope that a gun ban means they'll only stab or garotte me to death instead. Or maybe they bought a gun on the black market anyway. Being shot with an illegal gun is just as deadly...
Mudkitty,
How about you limit the right to speech only, it shouldn't cover burning flags, blogging, or anything else that didn't exist in the 1700s. Or what about freedom of the press. Lets start a government bureau that oversees the press. Lets say that the press has to submit all articles to the government. The article can then be made public as soon as the government approves it or 7 days has elapsed, whichever occurs first. I can see where that might have prevented the murder of the Amish girls.
My 14 year old son has been wanting an AK-47 look alike for a while. I think Monday is the day for that to happen, before it is impossible to by guns with the "evil" looks.
It looks like liberals would support the right to own guns. It beats watching a 106 lb woman having a fist fight with a rapist, but it guess it is better to give in to the rapist than anyone getting hurt. Liberals are for increasing the price of firearms and their use which keeps poor people who typically high crime areas without much police protection from protecting themselves.
Mark
Mark, good analogy.
The new bureau could be called "BUNT" (Bureau of Unnecessary News Topics) Articles that the .gov does not like can get BUNTed and never make it to first base.
Post a Comment