Smith And Wesson Forums banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
There's a series on NetFlix titled DOPE.

One episode in particular focuses on the West Side of Chicago. It's pretty enlightening regarding all things 2nd Amendment.



Travis
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,572 Posts
The NSSF has the same old defeatist anti-liberty thinking... You must surrender your liberty today for a promise of losing less liberty tomorrow. No thanks.

For even the casual observer with an IQ higher than a turnip... they should know by now that if someone wants a firearm they will get one. There is nothing Washington is going to dream-up to change that.

Gentlemen, prior to 1968 there was no FFL system and of course no NICS... Since all this BS has been instituted for decades, are guns now purged form the hands of criminals? No you say? There's your clue. I dare say there are likely more guns in the hands of criminals than ever before.

Repeal GCA of 1968 and all those goes with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,200 Posts
As ineffective & worthless as it is NICS is not going away (although it should). I don't object to a background check of itself but the whole 4473 form, etc. is useless paperwork creating thousands of jobs costing taxpayers millions. Changing it won't help, only make it even worse. However anyone pushing for it's removal, like any other gov't bunch, just isn't going to happen... get used to it. The 'gun show loophole' is moronic blather, any machine shop in the world can make guns & there are hundreds who have been doing exactly that for over a century. Guns are & will be available to criminals. So will bombs, & nukes if you could afford them. Locking criminals up in prison isn't a deterrent to street thugs who live in even worse conditions when free, it only takes them off the street temporarily @ great expense. The "wild west" wasn't settled by the lone city marshal but by the (temporarily deputized) citizen posses who got sick of the thugs. Armed good people are a deterrent. Those who are against armed citizens are simply afraid they will rise up against them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
And where is the perfect laboratory for proving what Injunbro said?

The City that took self defense away from citizens for decades? The place where politicians promise and power corrupts? The city that wants United Nations intervention on our American soil?

Why, Chicago of course!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hogg and Injunbro

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,572 Posts
Sometimes people get used to the way things have been and start believing things can't be changed.

Shall Issue swept across America beginning in the 1990s. Hell, even Illinois is now a Shall Issue state! Have you looked out the window for flying pigs? :D Constitutional Carry is now quickly growing-- 13 states. 30 years ago I would have been laughed at if I said that May Issue barriers to gun carry would be repealed from most all states in America. Yet, unrelenting seekers of liberty prevailed. Change occurred.

While repeal of GCA 1968 and with it NICS is not on the horizon today, we must remain vigilant and prevent it's tentacles from extending any further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,176 Posts
I was actually stunned the Assault Weapons ban was allowed to sunset. First time I've ever heard of a gun law that was repealed - in this case by allowing it to die rather than vote it down.

NICS is the same thing. Try to remove it now, and you'll have these arguments (not saying any are actually valid):

1. You're taking away our protection from criminals - this is a step back to the Wild West
2. NICS may not generate a lot of red flags, so it must be a deterrent to getting guns
3. Name calling - you're a shill for the NRA, ad nausea.

Not sure any lawmakers are ready to step up to that plate these days.

Regarding the locking up of criminals, part of the reason crime went way down in the 80-90's was we built a lot of prisons, and filled 'em up. Unfortunately a lot of those bodies were non-violent, but that's a different issue. Take the typical 15-30 year old gangbanger (not sure many live past 30 "in the wild", and those that do are less violent IMHO). If one uses a gun in a crime, and is convicted, he gets 20 years no-plea, no-parole added to his sentence. That means he'll be out when he's 35-50 (plus original sentence), and generally past his ultra-violent years. Yeah, he'll be fed and housed, but no wimmin [he won't breed more], very structured environment, limited activities, and he won't be committing any more crimes for all those years. Put him in a TX prison, and there will likely be no AC in the summer and not much heat in winter. Replace the grass-blowers with street thugs. He gets himself killed in prison, I won't weep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrerick

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
While it's not a prohibition, NICS does represent unfair, unconstitutional and illegal restraint of the rights of lawful citizens that are mistakenly delayed or stopped when purchasing firearms.

The attempt to use NICS to control prohibited people (that violate criminal law when they acquire firearms anyway) is, in effect, an example of a prohibition law.

The history of prohibition in the United States is that you do not stop crime and do not solve problems by passing such laws.

Enforcement that is viewed as unfair by law abiding citizens actually erodes the rule of law, and creates other problems including black markets for the prohibited items and the enrichment of organized criminal gangs.

Prohibition attempt examples?
  • Alcohol
  • Drugs
  • Sexual exploitation
  • Firearm Background checks
Just passing a law does nothing to stop crime or the prohibited behavior itself. Non-enforcement or selective enforcement compounds the problem. The cost of prohibition diverts resources from more worthy and necessary uses, and opens the door to increased crime by financing criminal and terrorist activities.

Unenforced law only pleases politicians and complicates the lives of the lawful and those prioritizing enforcement.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,572 Posts
As far repealing/reversing federal gun laws...

During the Obama admin the post 911 ban on guns carried in luggage on Amtrak trains was reversed as well as the Reagan era mandate that guns be locked in glove compartments or trunks of cars entering national parks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,176 Posts
As far repealing/reversing federal gun laws...

During the Obama admin the post 911 ban on guns carried in luggage on Amtrak trains was reversed as well as the Reagan era mandate that guns be locked in glove compartments or trunks of cars entering national parks.
And may-issue has become shall-issue, no-CC has universally become CC-allowed (but with a myriad of restrictions), and so on. I stand corrected.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,572 Posts
And may-issue has become shall-issue, no-CC has universally become CC-allowed (but with a myriad of restrictions), and so on.
Right. There isn't enough bandwidth here to list all the overturned gun control at the state level. But I think your general observation about not a lot of Federal gun laws being overturned is correct, in that the Feds simply haven't been doing much gun control legislation for the past 30 years other than the AWB which has sunset.

I am very much against the national reciprocity scheme. Feds pretending they'll force states like New Jersey to welcome with open arms us Tennessee hillbillies to enter the Garden State carrying Glocks with 17rd mags loaded with "cop killer" bullets is pure fantasy. Ultimately, the Feds would try to accommodate unfriendly states with national standards. That said, I'm not much concerned with it passing. The bill is so hopelessly flawed that a reasonable person could conclude its just another political stunt like voting for seven years to repeal Obamacare. I think the NRA supports national reciprocity mostly for fodder to solicit donations.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
As a lobby, we would be much more effective while the more conservative party is in control of the legislature and the executive if we would actively work toward the repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act and the unconstitutional 1986 Lautenburg changes.

While I don't think we'd necessarily win, it would certainly put the gun grabbing progressive liberals on the defensive and cause them to expend much of their treasure pushing back...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
OK, for those not in the know, how about a few speaking points on the 68 and 86 laws to mention in opposition to them. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,057 Posts
As a lobby, we would be much more effective while the more conservative party is in control of the legislature and the executive if we would actively work toward the repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act and the unconstitutional 1986 Lautenburg changes.

While I don't think we'd necessarily win, it would certainly put the gun grabbing progressive liberals on the defensive and cause them to expend much of their treasure pushing back...
It all needs to go and the NFA. Shall not be infringed as it is written.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
The Lautenberg amendment permitted widespread and gross firearms prohibition (including confiscation) after someone is accused of misdemeanor domestic violence and a also if a protection order is taken out against them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

This applies regardless of a person's history if a judge so orders it. All firearms in the target's possession are immediately confiscated and often damaged in storage.

These protection orders are routinely issued in many court jurisdictions. To my knowledge, this area is the only one in our justice system that takes away Second Amendment rights for a misdemeanor level offense. If someone is a violent spouse or family abuser, it would be better to handle the situation by charging and prosecuting the level of crime committed instead of doing plea reductions but boosting penalties like this.

Lautenberg also established a cut off date for legally transferable machine guns which are controlled by the 1934 National Firearms Act. This created an artificially boosted market for these weapons, and is further restraint of trade. You can legally own these if you want them, but the act ensures that the number of available transferable firearms will be forever limited. Thus a $800 firearm becomes a $22,000 firearm. Of course, the government can have all they want at the $800 level. This imbalance flies in the face of founder's justifications for the Second Amendment.

The 1968 GCA effectively creates artificial markets for firearms within state borders and inhibits otherwise legal trade. It established the FFL system which allows the Federal government to step in because it's interstate commerce (unless the firearm is manufactured within and sold within your state). Most states followed up by mirroring requirements of the Federal system preventing these in state transactions without a FFL.

This licensing scheme, which prevents dealers from selling long guns to most people from other states, and prohibits handgun sales across state borders, has also enabled the patchwork of 22,000 state and local laws we live with today. It's the grand-daddy of gun control mechanisms. Why, for example, is a 30 round magazine more dangerous in New York than in Florida? This kind of bad law is enabled by the GCA.

- - - -

I'd rather get Bloomberg busy spending money against efforts to repeal these laws than have him push more new onerous in our states and nationally. Playing a good defense as gun owners is fine, but at some point when you have the majority a good offense is appropriate...
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top