Recent Gun Control developments/speculation thread

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Vanilla Gorilla

    The Gringo Pistolero
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    6,468
    36
    I think what Bloomberg is saying is that the President should clearly define what he wants to see happen. I wish he would do that to.
     

    lsufan1971

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    121   0   0
    Jan 31, 2008
    1,557
    48
    Zachary,La
    Guys I don't believe he can do this via Executive Action. Congrees was granted the power to Levy Taxes by The Constitution. The President cannot levy new taxes via Executive Order.

    Congress has already granted the power with the NFA act of 1934. It would not be considered "new". The Director of ATF ads the list of guns to the NFA1934 list same thing they did with the street sweeper and variants.
     

    Vanilla Gorilla

    The Gringo Pistolero
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    6,468
    36
    I think that's oversimplified. It would require a re-interpretation of sporting purpose etc. I also think that the Street Sweeper thing was approved by congress. Not to mention I think it's being imported rather than domestic played a role.
     

    Vanilla Gorilla

    The Gringo Pistolero
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    6,468
    36
    If in the next four years our elected leaders force ehanced gun control on us the central issue for 2016 will be Gun Control. The Dems saw the result of that in 2000. More so than anything else politicians wanna stay politicians. I don't see any net gain.
     

    Vermiform

    Free Candy!
    Gold Member
    Marketplace Mod
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Sep 18, 2006
    5,271
    48
    Shreveport - or therebouts
    I think that's oversimplified. It would require a re-interpretation of sporting purpose etc.

    Which is what Uncle BATFuk almost did to a few shotguns only last year. The only thing that stopped them was a quick under the radar sneaky piece of legislation tacked on to the omnibus bill. Using this method I think they could go after imported "scary rifles" like you said. Wouldn't solve their problem of domestically produced ARs though. Could possibly regulate them through the UN Arms treaty. Not ban, but regulate them if the treaty were ratified.

    Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
     

    Dishonored

    Hunter
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Oct 27, 2012
    2,985
    48
    Prairieville
    qape9ady.jpg

    Hmmm.
     
    Last edited:

    Vanilla Gorilla

    The Gringo Pistolero
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    6,468
    36
    Which is what Uncle BATFuk almost did to a few shotguns only last year. The only thing that stopped them was a quick under the radar sneaky piece of legislation tacked on to the omnibus bill. Using this method I think they could go after imported "scary rifles" like you said. Wouldn't solve their problem of domestically produced ARs though. Could possibly regulate them through the UN Arms treaty. Not ban, but regulate them if the treaty were ratified.

    Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


    Have you read the UN Treaty?
     

    Vermiform

    Free Candy!
    Gold Member
    Marketplace Mod
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Sep 18, 2006
    5,271
    48
    Shreveport - or therebouts
    Have you read the UN Treaty?

    A few parts of it last year before it was scrapped and I won't pretend to understand much of it. Some of it seemed able to be applied to the US via increased regulation as long as they didn't cross the line and implement any bans. I have not looked at any of it since the elections and the renewed interest. Has it changed much? Is it even the same document?

    I do know that they would not need any help from a treaty to implement any new import bans. The would only have to reclassify some rifles as non-sporting, much like they tried to do with some shotguns.
     

    Vanilla Gorilla

    The Gringo Pistolero
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    6,468
    36
    Nothing in it relates to Domestic or International Possession. It simply requires countries to track and record where they export weapons and who receives them. All treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. The UN has no legislative authority in the US or anywhere else. In order for the law to change in the US, if a change was mandated by the treaty, Congress would have to do it.
     

    Sin-ster

    GM of 4 Letter Outbursts
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    My prediction on what will happen:

    Nothing.

    A lot of hubbub, media coverage, chest-beating and rhetoric.
    Another "scare" leading to scarce ammo, primers, powder and AR's.
    Another couple of years to recover from the retarded process outlined above.

    And then nothing.

    MAYBE, if we're very lucky, a few thousand people will finally learn their lesson about paying attention to media hype at all-- whether they agree or disagree with it.

    Politics are a business; mass media is a business; used car sales are a business.

    Why do we find more merit in what the first two businesses have to say, and immediately question the third?

    Perhaps the most important point-- without the right amount of funds, nads and know-how, there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Write your congressman and elected officials if their cookie-cutter autoresponse will make you feel better. In the end, all we have the power to do is jack up prices and create shortages-- frantic consumerism at its finest.

    /cynical, emotionless Realism.
     

    Robhic

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    693
    18
    Destrehan, LA
    Hey, Gun Controllers -- Answer Me This

    Before you get your knickers in a twist about gun control, please answer me this: Connecticut is listed by the Brady people as the state with the 4th strongest gun control laws. If gun control is the answer, how did those children and others at Sandy Hook get shot?! If Connecticut is so safe, WHY DID THEY LET THOSE PEOPLE GET KILLED?

    Please explain before you get rolling to control our guns. Thank you and carry on.
     

    lab rat

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 10, 2012
    2
    1
    Central
    Also micro stamping will be included.
    I don't see the micorstamp thing happening. Forensic community has for the most part proven this is unreliable and we are better off leaving things as they are. I think it passed in California but was then overturned after a short period (not 100% sure of that though).
     

    cajun 22

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    May 22, 2008
    1,497
    48
    Houma, LA
    Sin-ster nailed it. Plus they (DEMS) don't want to lose traction in the senate for the 2014 elections. The pretender in chief wants to keep a stronghold somewhere so he is not out there alone.
     
    Top Bottom