Gun ban on the way.

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    [​IMG][​IMG] [​IMG] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Obama gun ban? Not so outrageous now

    [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 03, 2011
    10:45 pm Eastern

    [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] © 2011 [/SIZE]
    After more than two years of relative quiet regarding gun-control issues, the Obama administration, through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, has begun laying the groundwork for a massive gun ban.
    Last week the ATF released a "study" discussing the suitability of certain "non-sporting" shotguns for importation and sale in the U.S. The "study" suggests that shotguns with military-type features are not suitable for sporting purposes and therefore do not qualify for legal importation.
    Unfortunately this "sporting purpose" language appears in several places in federal gun laws. These laws have been used successfully to ban several specific styles of shotguns in the past – not just banned from import or banned from sale, but banned from possession without special government permission and taxes.
    The Armsel Striker and its various derivatives, for example, were little-known, repeating, 12-gauge shotguns capable of firing 12 shots as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. In 1994 the ATF declared that these shotguns and their clones were not suitable for sporting purposes.
    The National Firearms Act, or NFA, and Gun Control Act, or GCA, say that, with the exception of shotguns that are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, any firearm with a bore greater than one half inch is a "destructive device." A destructive device, or DD, is restricted almost exactly like a machinegun. To own one you must undergo a background investigation and get the permission of your local chief law enforcement official and also pay a special $200 transfer tax.
    By declaring that the Striker was not suitable for sporting purposes, ATF removed the guns from the shotgun exception, automatically relegating them to DD status. People who already owned these guns were given a window during which they were required to register them, destroy them or turn them over to ATF.
    (Column continues below)

    With this new ATF "study," the Obama administration appears to be lining up dominoes in preparation to knock more down. As ATF pointed out in their reclassification of the Striker, the "sporting purpose" language in the NFA and GCA is virtually identical to the definition of destructive device, and therefore reclassifying a gun to a DD for import purposes also reclassifies it for GCA and NFA purposes.
    While the telegraphed message from ATF is, "Prepare for new import restrictions on military looking shotguns," the message gun owners and respecters of the Constitution should be hearing is, "ATF is about to ban military-looking shotguns!"
    Any such ban will be retroactive and could require all current owners of any shotgun on the ban list to go through all of the investigation and permitting processes and pay the $200 tax if they wish to keep the guns, though it is likely that they would wave the tax to help encourage compliance.
    By re-opening this Pandora's Box of "sporting purpose" tests for shotguns, ATF could easily trip into the issue of "pistol-grip" shotguns as well. Shotguns with no shoulder stock but only a pistol grip have become very popular home defense and wilderness utility firearms.
    Over a decade ago ATF relabeled these guns as "pistol-grip firearms" rather than shotguns, because under the legal definition in both the GCA and NFA a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder and these guns are clearly not. So even though the actions and capabilities are the same, because the shoulder stock is removed, the official ATF classification of these firearms is no longer "shotgun." This is particularly significant in light of the direction ATF is going with their "study," because if shotguns with pistol-grips and no shoulder stock are not "shotguns," then they are by default, under the definitions of NFA and GCA and the logic of ATF, "destructive devices."
    Reclassifying a few thousand Striker and similar shotguns is one thing. Reclassifying the several hundred thousand military-look shotguns likely to fall under the pending import ban would be a pretty massive undertaking. But reclassifying and dealing with all of the paperwork and necessary enforcement action for the millions of pistol-grip shotguns would be completely impossible without something akin to martial law.
    The conclusion of all of this ATF posturing and preparation is hard to predict, and it could take years for it all to play out, but in the meantime ATF and the Obama administration have successfully instigated a new consumer rush for military-looking shotguns in anticipation of a ban and dramatically increased prices.
    For over two years gun owners and rights advocates have been ridiculed and denigrated by the press and pundits for demonstrating an irrational and baseless fear that Barack Obama was going to "take away their guns." These ever so reasonable and rational journalists and commentators would virtually roll their eyes as they reported on the crazy paranoia fueling record gun sales. They would go on to repeat comments from Obama during the campaign and as president expressing his belief in, and support for, the Second Amendment. Some would even dredge up a clip of Vice President Joe Biden declaring that his running mate wasn't going to take peoples' guns – including Biden's own Berretta shotgun.
    What was most astounding about these reports was how the talking heads would often segue directly into a story about the Brady Campaign Against Guns being frustrated that Obama had failed to live up to campaign promises to restore the Clinton ban on "assault weapons."
    Apparently, to the media, "taking away your guns" is an all-or-nothing matter. They seem to think that gun owners and supporters of liberty would only have reason for concern if the president and Congress were trying to take away all guns from everyone (except, of course, government enforcers) and that banning "assault weapons" or "cheap handguns" or private transfers of firearms does not constitute "taking your guns away."

    [FONT='Times New Roman',Georgia,Times]Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His writing can regularly be seen in Shotgun News and Front Sight magazines as well as here on WorldNetDaily.[/FONT]
  2. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    Damn. What bother me most is the fact that the justice dept. and these bureaucracies simply make proclamations that we all have to abide by. Seems to me we have a process for making law and by doing what they do, the BATF usurps congressional authority.

    Were in for a tough time.

  3. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    Well that's what they have been doing for years. The Constitution means nothing to them. They just do what ever they want to, and they think we won't do a thing about it. Don't know about the rest of you folks, but I'm getting tired of this.
  4. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    Dittos Carver
  5. al45lc

    al45lc Active Member

    Mar 8, 2010
    colorful colorado
    I must need new reading glasses, I still can't find the "sporting purpose" line or clause in the 2nd amendment! :rolleyes:
  6. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    Here is yet more news, sad news.
    Dems dial up pressure on gun safety after inaction in 111th

    By Mike Lillis - 02/04/11 06:11 AM ET
    House Democrats urging gun-safety hearings have swerved sharply from their actions last Congress, when they staged none despite their control of the chamber and pressure from some of their members.
    Judiciary Committee Democrats argued last month that it's "imperative" for the panel's Republican leaders to examine the nation's gun-safety laws in the wake of the Arizona shooting rampage that left a 9-year-old dead and a congresswoman seriously injured.


    Yet in the two years prior, when Democrats controlled the panel's schedule, gun reform never got an official hearing, despite the 34 Americans killed each day, on average, by firearms nationwide.The inaction hasn't been overlooked by gun-reform advocates, who say it shouldn't require a multi-death rampage or an assassination attempt on a national figure to spur Capitol Hill into a public-safety debate.
    "Thirty-four people killed yesterday; 34 people killed today; 34 people killed tomorrow," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told MSNBC last week. "Every day, bigger than Virginia Tech — and nobody cares."
    The inaction hasn't been for an absence of pressure. Last year, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a member of the Judiciary panel, requested that Democratic leaders hold a hearing on the so-called gun-show loophole, a provision of federal law allowing unlicensed gun vendors to sell firearms without performing background checks on prospective buyers — a step required of licensed gun dealers.
    He didn't get it.
    Instead, the committee — then chaired by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a vocal supporter of tougher gun laws — granted Quigley a less prominent "forum" on the issue in his Chicago district. Reps. Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-Va.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) joined Quigley and Conyers in attending the event.
    Democratic leaders "weren't particularly helpful" on the gun-reform issue last Congress, Quigley said in a phone interview last month. The Illinois Democrat said there is a host of gun-related issues of which Congress is unaware "because there's not even hearings or discussion about it, where we can talk about the parameters of what's reasonable."
    "The gun lobby has stymied debate, and it has kept members from even discussing the issue," Quigley said. Reform, he added dryly, "is harder to do if you're not even discussing it."
    The reason has been no mystery. With the House Blue Dog Coalition boasting more than 50 members in the 111th Congress, Democratic gun reformers — including President Obama — had little chance of passing legislation even through the Democratic-controlled lower chamber. An early signal came in February of 2009, when Attorney General Eric Holder promoted a return of the assault-weapons ban, which had expired five years earlier. Sixty-five House Democrats wrote to the White House condemning the proposal.
    “Law-abiding Americans use these guns for all the same reasons they use any other kind of gun – competitive shooting, hunting and defending their homes and families,” the Democrats wrote.
    The message was clear: Any proposed restrictions on the Second Amendment were both practically futile and politically perilous. The White House abandoned the push altogether.
    The Arizona shooting has altered both the political landscape and the Democrats' appetite for an examination of the nation's gun laws. In a Jan. 27 letter, the 16 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee urged Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to stage gun-safety hearings in response to the Tucson rampage, which has left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) recovering from a gunshot wound to the head.
    "We fully recognize and appreciate the sensitivity of the subjects raised by the recent tragedy in Tucson in which our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot and 18 others were wounded or killed," the Democrats wrote. "However, we also believe it is not only possible, but imperative that Congress review the relevant issues in a civil and objective [manner]."
    Smith last week rejected the Democrats' request, arguing that such a high-profile public event could undermine the prosecution of the alleged Arizona shooter, Jared Lee Loughner.
    "[T]o undertake such a review in the context of the tragic shooting in Arizona, as the Minority suggests, could have the unintended effect of prejudicing the ongoing criminal proceedings against Loughner in which his mental status is likely to be a key issue," Smith said in an e-mail.
    Instead, Smith's office has arranged for the FBI to brief Judiciary staffers from both parties on the effectiveness of the federal database designed to screen gun purchases for prohibited buyers. That meeting is scheduled for Friday.
    The offices of both Conyers and Smith declined to comment for this story.
    Stirring the gun-reform debate, Bloomberg on Monday released the results of an investigation revealing that unlicensed dealers at a Jan. 23 gun show in Phoenix sold firearms illegally. Undercover investigators hired by New York City were able to purchase firearms from two dealers at the event, even after the buyers revealed they "probably couldn't pass" a background check.
    Unlicensed gun vendors are prohibited from selling firearms if they "know" or have "reason to believe" the buyer is banned from possessing a gun.
    Gun-control advocates argue that keeping guns from felons, the mentally ill and other prohibited buyers should be in everyone's interest — even the gun lobby's.
    "This is hardly something the [National Rifle Association] should be against," Bloomberg told MSNBC Tuesday. "How can they argue that criminals should continue to buy guns? That's just making the world more dangerous."
    The NRA is opposed to legislation requiring unlicensed vendors to perform background checks on potential buyers.
    Asked Monday if Obama intends to address gun reform following the New York City investigation, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dodged the question.
    "We believe that there are reasons that federal laws are on the books," Gibbs said, "and the need … to strongly adhere to and follow existing law is important not just in the purchase of weapons, but throughout our civil life."
    Gibbs walked off the podium as the reporter was asking a follow-up.
  7. johnlives4christ

    johnlives4christ Former Guest

    Apr 28, 2008
    if i had to pick two words to describe how i feel those would be.

    armed revolt
  8. ofitg

    ofitg Active Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    The "sporting purposes" language is biting us again. This will never end.
  9. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    We need to come up with a new sport. Anyone up for a version of sporting clays where you 20+ targets from a single position? :D:D:D:D:D:D

    But seriously, someone needs to remind our government that we set limits on what they can do so that they couldn't set limits like this on what we can do.
  10. ofitg

    ofitg Active Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    The people on this forum know that the "sporting purposes" language does not comply with the Second Amendment.

    Recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to firearms for self defense. Self defense is not "sporting purposes".

    Could it be argued in court that the recent Supreme Court rulings should strike down the "sporting purposes" language in NFA'34 and GCA'68? I wonder.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  11. jedwil

    jedwil Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    Texas Hill Country
    GOA Alert

    Fri, February 4, 2011 5:21:50 PM
    Magazine Ban, Gun Show Ban and Even a Gun Ownership Ban...
    Gun Owners of America <>

    Magazine Ban, Gun Show Ban and Even a Gun Ownership Ban...
    -- All this and more may come up in the Senate!

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

    Friday, February 4, 2011

    Since the Tucson tragedy, anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has been hovering like a vulture, waiting to pick the bones of the victims for political advantage.

    Now he has his chance.

    The same Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization which provided a vote on the repeal of ObamaCare may well be the vehicle for a series of gun control proposals.

    Right now, no one knows which amendments will be offered. Democratic leaders like Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) are threatening to offer anti-gun amendments, and pro-gun Senators like Tom Coburn (R-OK) are considering amendments to protect gun rights.

    Now, it's entirely possible that senators from both sides will simply retreat to their own corners. In fact, GOA's sources inside the Senate indicate that gun amendments to the FAA bill are unlikely at this point, but there's no way can we count on that -- and risk being caught unprepared.

    There are three amendments which Lautenberg and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) have been nursing since Tucson.

    The first would limit semi-automatic magazines to 10 rounds, in a reprise of the Clinton ban.

    The second would effectively shut down all gun shows. It would do this by sending any gun show promoter to prison for up to two years if a SINGLE attendee were not informed of his Brady Law obligations. No one would dare sponsor a gun show under these circumstances.

    The third anti-gun amendment would allow the Obama administration to seize guns from anyone they choose to place on a "watch list." Millions and millions of pro-gun supporters could find their names on an ObamaList with no due process -- and no way to get their names removed. Please note that this administration has already advised law enforcement to treat supporters of the Constitution and gun rights as possible domestic terrorists!

    ACTION: Contact your two senators. Ask them to support any pro-gun amendments, and definitely insist they vote against the Lautenberg/Durbin amendments to ban semi-automatic magazines, shut down gun shows, and create a "no guns list" of Second Amendment activists. You can click on the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your senators a pre-written message.
  12. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    It could definitely be argued. I don't know that it would be successful (even the Supreme Court isn't a huge fan of personal liberty), but it could be presented before a court.
  13. cycloneman

    cycloneman Well-Known Member

    Dec 16, 2008
    part of the overall socialist plan. communist 101. it will come around.

    I mean what else do you expect from the.......... left
  14. rentalguy1

    rentalguy1 Former Guest

    Since the Constitution means nothing to them, then their regulations mean nothing to me. I will buy what I want, from whom I want, when I want. If it is on their list, then I guess they can label me as a outlaw. I really just don't care. I refuse to pay their tax, or register it. I d**n sure won't turn it in, either. If they want it, they can come get it, but I can guarantee that it will get ugly. I'm through playing legal eagle.
  15. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    Jan 16, 2011
    South Jersey
    I believe, and I pray that I am right on this, that this is mostly just political posturing. These guys know that these bills wont pass, it's a great way for them to say "we tried to make the world safer but the bad conservative peoples wouldn't help us!"

    Given the way things are today, I like to think it would be political suicide for this stuff to get pushed too far.

    I try to remind myself that these POLITICIANS are all about themselves, they are NOT going to cut their own political throat. My opinion, for what it's worth.