JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Dont know how you figure that the 1986 gun control act wasn't gun control when in the same breath you state it effected machine guns. I thought a machine gun was a gun. You cant pick and choose if the zebra has stripes. By all standards the 1986 act was and is gun control.

Well. That was an amendment added to the bill by a Democrat( Representative William J. Hughes, D-NJ) in order to "poison" the bill.

One of the law's provisions (codified in section 926A of title 18 of the U.S. Code) was that persons traveling from one place to another have a defense for any state firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gasoline), provided that the individual is not otherwise prohibited from possession of a firearm, the firearms and ammunition are not readily accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.[11][12]

This section has also been interpreted to protect air travel.[13][14]

Definitions of certain terms in the law include:

  • Transporting. Not staying for any determined length of time. Passing through on the way to some place.
  • Unloaded. No ammunition in the firearm. In the case of McDaniel v. Arnold, the courts upheld a conviction based on the interpretation that the accused had a loaded firearm despite not having a round in the chambered position.[15]
  • Not readily accessible. There are no clear court decisions or interpretations available but this term is widely regarded as meaning Not capable of being reached quickly for operation.
  • Locked container. A hard-sided container that is locked such as to prevent unauthorized users from gaining access.
Lets see. This infringes on firearm owners..how? Its the other way around and is the main subject of the law.

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations)) being:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
And this is another pro 2A section of the law, while yes it does maintain that the NFA 1934 act requires registration of NFA firearms, it also states that no other firearms are legally to be registered.. (a slap in the face of the previous handgun registeration laws in some States...)
 
Well. That was an amendment added to the bill by a Democrat in order to "poison" the bill.


Lets see. This infringes on firearm owners..how? Its the other way around and is the main subject of the law.


And this is another pro 2A section of the law, while yes it does maintain that the NFA 1934 act requires registration of NFA firearms, it also states that no other firearms are legally to be registered.. (a slap in the face of the previous handgun registeration laws in some States...)
Reagan signed it - correct
It prohibits the ownership of machine guns unless you are willing to jump through a lot of red tape and has made machine guns prohibitively expensive ensuring a limited quantity is available - seems pretty restrictive to me. To me that is the definition of gun control.
 
Reagan signed it - correct
It prohibits the ownership of machine guns unless you are willing to jump through a lot of red tape and has made machine guns prohibitively expensive ensuring a limited quantity is available - seems pretty restrictive to me. To me that is the definition of gun control.
But its not the main point of the bill.

:rolleyes:
The main point of the bill... to ensure that a person, if not otherwise prohibited, can travel through states like NJ, NY, California, MA, MD, etc with a firearm that does not comply with these States restrictions/laws.
2nd main point of bill; to ensure that the ATF or any other Govt Agency cannot legally keep a registry of firearms that are not NFA covered. This means legally, California and NY cant have handgun registration as handguns are not under the purview of the 1934 NFA law.
It also clarifies the GCA 1968 rules on "prohibited persons".

Ideally I would like to see the ATF abolished, and NFA 1934, GCA1968 repealed.. maybe revise FOPA 86 to remove the hughes amendment... but that is never going to happen, regardless of who is in control.

As for the last 20 or so years? Well. Maybe not Federal but on State level.. lets see...
Constitutional Carry passed in many States following Vermont's lead.. and even in Puerto Rico:eek:
Idaho, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, and Arkansas. Some of these States require one to be residents to carry concealed without permits.

Edit. Actually it is of interest to note that prior to 2003; only Vermont had Constitutional Carry/unrestricted permitlesd carry law. Alaska was the 2nd State to follow suit, and since then, the number of States that prohibited conceal carry have gone way down to 0.
 
This has been a slippery slope for decades starting with Lautenberg and similar DV laws and ex-parte restraining orders.

We have rapidly evolved from removing gun rights from convicted felons, to removing guns from convicted misdemeanor domestic battery, to any household or relationship assaults, and now to thought crime or future possibility of crime...

Gun owners need to be very careful who they let in their lives folks AND what they say online. Plain and simple.

It's literally to the point where any disgruntled person can complain and fabricate allegations and have you disarmed by a team of men with guns. In an era of anonymous swatting and disgruntled division of people, this is very dangerous for gun owners.

These states and thought police laws are getting out-of-control and people need to WAKE UP.

This breaks my heart as a freedom loving gun owning lawyer because these laws are so blatantly illegal and violate state and federal Constitutional rights and yet they continue to be supported and pass.
 
But its not the main point of the bill.

:rolleyes:
The main point of the bill... to ensure that a person, if not otherwise prohibited, can travel through states like NJ, NY, California, MA, MD, etc with a firearm that does not comply with these States restrictions/laws.
2nd main point of bill; to ensure that the ATF or any other Govt Agency cannot legally keep a registry of firearms that are not NFA covered. This means legally, California and NY cant have handgun registration as handguns are not under the purview of the 1934 NFA law.
It also clarifies the GCA 1968 rules on "prohibited persons".

Ideally I would like to see the ATF abolished, and NFA 1934, GCA1968 repealed.. maybe revise FOPA 86 to remove the hughes amendment... but that is never going to happen, regardless of who is in control.

As for the last 20 or so years? Well. Maybe not Federal but on State level.. lets see...
Constitutional Carry passed in many States following Vermont's lead.. and even in Puerto Rico:eek:
Idaho, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, and Arkansas. Some of these States require one to be residents to carry concealed without permits.

Edit. Actually it is of interest to note that prior to 2003; only Vermont had Constitutional Carry/unrestricted permitlesd carry law. Alaska was the 2nd State to follow suit, and since then, the number of States that prohibited conceal carry have gone way down to 0.
I see it as gun control - you choose not to recognize it at such why I dont know.
 
I see it as gun control - you choose not to recognize it at such why I dont know.

Just checked back in here since yesterday. 6 pages deep and your still on the 'ol he said she said BS. Huh.

As much blame that your placing on everyone else for doing nothing, but you can't see that your doing the same thing you claim elected officials are doing - by arguing over who is more restrictive and worse? :s0153:

6 pages of junk. Can't wait for this one to be locked and deleted. What a waste.

Buh byee.
 
I see it as gun control - you choose not to recognize it at such why I dont know.
So... you're gonna ignore the two positives for the one negative and call it gun control, and let me guess, you would rather repeal the whole of it?
You saying you would prefer that the ATF and FBI keep a registry of guns not covered by the NFA, and prefer that firearm owners not be able to travel through anti-2A states with firearms they own that doesnt comply with these States' laws.. just because you cant get post 1986 Machine Guns unless youre a Class III FFL? :rolleyes: talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater
 
You all can go back and forth all you want as long as we keep it nice. I just don't see the point. Obviously the two of you don't see eye to eye so just let it be. :rolleyes:
He sure does seem bent on blaming Republicans/Rino for things that the Democrata have sponsored, inserted, and added to bills :rolleyes:

And back to the original topic.
I have yet to hear @JRuby 's ideas, comments, or suggestions on what can we do to fight these unconstitutional laws as a group?
 
The honest answer is I dont know the solution to this problem. I have my opinions of what needs to change but even those are lacking. The only thing I know that can reverse this spiral is changing the publics perspective on guns - the problem with society is they wont miss what they had till its history.

I feel that there are a lot of people that are getting tired of hearing about some individual who goes in and opens on innocent individuals but this is not a new story. The tools maybe different but intent is the same as it has always been. I also do not know how to stop this any more than the pope does. I know this I will not be at the mercy of such individual if I have any say in the matter.
-
 
Not every problem has a solution, this is why we prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Those that don't prepare clamor for a government solution to their problems. A free person wants to solve their own problems so they don't have to trade their freedom for a life in chains as payment.
 
Not every problem has a solution, this is why we prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Those that don't prepare clamor for a government solution to their problems. A free person wants to solve their own problems so they don't have to trade their freedom for a life in chains as payment.

I would add that I believe the answer is LESS government "solutions" to this problem.
 
And back to the original topic..................what can we do to fight these unconstitutional laws as a group?

Give to the gun groups who fight for our rights.

In Oregon, if they pass more restrictions soon, we could look at politicians who vote for it and if some are in vulnerable districts recall them.

Also, we should be looking at which districts are up for reelection in 2020 (unless they will change due to gerrymandering). See which ones are vulnerable and hit those hard to get out the vote.

And, write and call President Trump regularly pushing for help from the US Supreme Court. Ditto for other senators/representatives sympathetic to our cause.

President Trump:
Contact the White House | The White House
phone: 202-456-1111
 
Lexingtonuninc
My name is William Edward Lewellen, and I live in Lexington Wa unincorporated.
I'm not afraid of the boogeyman, nor am I afraid of those who express their opinions, which is why I've included my real name instead of a fictional name, like most some choose, (GREAT TO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY). Maybe Skruger or JRuby can help me get that changed from lexingtonuninc to William Edward Lewellen in the near future, or maybe they'll just kick my bubblegum off this forum? Regardless, I share a similar interest, which includes shooting and supporting the only, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This includes our Second Amendment as stated in our constitution of the United States of America, not Canada, Mexico or any other country, PERIOD.
 
Dont know how you figure that the 1986 gun control act wasn't gun control when in the same breath you state it effected machine guns. I thought a machine gun was a gun. You cant pick and choose if the zebra has stripes. By all standards the 1986 act was and is gun control.

To add insult to injury, it didn't really pass.

 
Lexingtonuninc
My name is William Edward Lewellen, and I live in Lexington Wa unincorporated.
I'm not afraid of the boogeyman, nor am I afraid of those who express their opinions, which is why I've included my real name instead of a fictional name, like most some choose, (GREAT TO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY). Maybe Skruger or JRuby can help me get that changed from lexingtonuninc to William Edward Lewellen in the near future, or maybe they'll just kick my bubblegum off this forum? Regardless, I share a similar interest, which includes shooting and supporting the only, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This includes our Second Amendment as stated in our constitution of the United States of America, not Canada, Mexico or any other country, PERIOD.
I think it requires an admin to do that.
 
Lexingtonuninc
My name is William Edward Lewellen, and I live in Lexington Wa unincorporated.
I'm not afraid of the boogeyman, nor am I afraid of those who express their opinions, which is why I've included my real name instead of a fictional name, like most some choose, (GREAT TO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY). Maybe Skruger or JRuby can help me get that changed from lexingtonuninc to William Edward Lewellen in the near future, or maybe they'll just kick my bubblegum off this forum? Regardless, I share a similar interest, which includes shooting and supporting the only, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This includes our Second Amendment as stated in our constitution of the United States of America, not Canada, Mexico or any other country, PERIOD.

Shoot me a PM and we will get the process started.
 
Just a couple of thoughts. Contrary to popular thinking, gun control isn't a Democatic or Republican party issue but that's often how gun control is framed in the media. Gun control policy however should be a universal social issue, and Americans could learn much from Australia if we bothered to look. I don't trust our governments any more or less than most gun owners because most of our governments are controlled by special interests and Corporations. However, consider this: when gun owners say that they don't trust government, what are we really saying? What don't we trust? Government by special interests and Corporations? If American governments were honestly 'popular' as intended by the Framers, and if gun owners nevertheless still distrusted government, we would be saying that we don't trust our fellow citizens? If Americans desired it, the citizens of the US could regain control of their government from special interests and corporations. Would that then mean that gun owners trusted governments by and for the people? What if a popular majority in a truly representative government favored strong gun control? Obviously these are rhetorical questions since Americans are much to busy or lazy to reclaim their governments. Still, I think it is instructional for us to seriously consider what and who we honestly oppose. I suspect that the most strident anti-gun law advocates aren't anti-government or anti-Democrat; they are anti-anyone who would seek to restrain their gun use or ownership in any way, even if a true popular majority believed that such control is of public benefit. Does this mean that some gun owners care more about their personal interests than the social good?
 
If American governments were honestly 'popular' as intended by the Framers, and if gun owners nevertheless still distrusted government, we would be saying that we don't trust our fellow citizens?
yes. This is what liberty means. The freedom to trust or distrust people and not be killed, jailed, or otherwise punished for disagreeing. The freedom to be left alone by people. The freedom to leave people alone and let them live how they want, regardless of your personal beliefs. A strong moral component to personal responsibility amd accountability is required to be truly liberated from the enslavement of government.

If Americans desired it, the citizens of the US could regain control of their government from special interests and corporations. Would that then mean that gun owners trusted governments by and for the people?
still no. It would mean now that the gun owners have a more personal stake in the well being of the US, regardless of the governmental form.

What if a popular majority in a truly representative government favored strong gun control?
Tyranny of the Majority. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union during the 1920s and 1930s with Pogroms.

Obviously these are rhetorical questions since Americans are much to busy or lazy to reclaim their governments. Still, I think it is instructional for us to seriously consider what and who we honestly oppose. I suspect that the most strident anti-gun law advocates aren't anti-government or anti-Democrat; they are anti-anyone who would seek to restrain their gun use or ownership in any way, even if a true popular majority believed that such control is of public benefit. Does this mean that some gun owners care more about their personal interests than the social good?
Yes. To borrow from a good old tv show Babylon 5; "Enlightened Self interests"; is how cultures develop laws and alliances with other cultures.

Here is just a personal opinion.
the U.S. government is designed to protect everyone's rights not control everyone's rights
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top