what could happen to our gun rights in the next 4-5 years?

[MichaelJ]

I know this is VERY hypothetical and there isn't a true answer but maybe someone could shed some light on realistic possibilities with real life examples. How would it happen? Will hand guns one day just be outlawed? Rifles/shotguns? Does having things stocked up matter if they were outlawed? Like ammo and firearms? Would police come searching houses of gun owners and confiscate everything that was found? Or will it be slow like mags limited to 10 rounds, concealed permits taken away or made harder to get? I know it could be a dumb question but I find myself asking questions like these. My initial response is ”if you can pry them from my cold dead fingers” but really? Am I going to take on a swat team? lol I don't know what I should expect from responses but I'm just curious what all of you think could happen and how the events might play out

Read More

 

[aslinged]

It's not a stupid thing to discuss. Discussion leading to proliferation of knowledge and awareness of real issues is something this society lacks in a major way. In no small part this lack is due to 'slave on slave' ridicule. If 'we' truly are the people, in the Constitutional sense, then it is up to us to police each other with an eye toward opening debate. Not shutting it down.

Along these lines, forum members who have nothing to add other than 'that's stupid; that's tinfoil,' etc. should not be likewise shutdown, as it's their right to their opinion, but rather it is our responsibility to take note of their patterns, consider their intentions and generally be personally responsible for seeking the truth and not being swayed by peer pressure arriving through ridicule.

Evidence, empiricism and an accurate understanding of history are critical to discussions of this sort...considering the potential ramifications.

 

[thereddog]

Probably the best way to get an idea of what will happen would be to look at history.

Look at the confiscation of firearms in Germany by the Nazis

Look at loss of firearms in the UK

Look at Loss of firearms in Australia

History repeats and there are blueprints for confiscation from other countries with the same agendas.

 

[beavertonbuck]

I have been thinking about this a lot with the elections coming up and have several thoughts. I think most of these scenarios are contigent on Obama getting reelected.

Legislative Action: I don't see a lot coming out of Congress at this time. After the elections I don't see the Republicans Democrats coming out with a solid majority. Factor in a lot of Democrats are in pro-gun districts and will not vote against their own interest. Remember politicians don't care about causes they care about power. They don't want to do anything that hurt their party's chances of being in charge. There isn't enough anti-gun people to care if your vote pisses them off because you are only going to lose 2-3 votes but if you piss off gun owners then we are talking millions of angry voters. So I don't see an attempt to ban "assualt weapons" or such.

Executive Orders/ATF Rules: I think that this is the biggest concern but also the the most limited. Executive orders are laws in the sense that Obama couldn't saw 10+ magazines are illegal because he doesn't have the authority to impose a penalty for breaking the rule. The ATF could continue to make rules on what is imported into the country or but restrictions on what is manufacturered within the US. I don't see them having the political capital to make such a rule. Also though I am not an attorney the recent SCC Sackett vs. EPA provides a good basis for citizens challenging adminstrative rules of govermental agencies.

Supreme Court: If Obama is elected then he could have potentially two more nominations and that is the biggest threat albeit a slow burning one. Obviously the courts would need to wait for cases to be challenged before getting involved in gun laws but you should expect the rulings to either restrict or eliminate the right to carry or own firearms.

If you want to know what it would look like then I would suggest you read up on Canada and Great Britain. First it starts with registration. You have to have a firearm license to own a gun and your handguns must be registered. Then someone is killed with a rifle and they pass a law that says that you have to register your long guns as well. Then we get all PC and can't have scary black guns around. So we outlaw certain guns and what do you know we have this handy list that tells us who has these guns and where they live. In Great Britain they have pretty much given up their rights and accepted that guns should be banned. In Canada they just scrapped their long gun registry because (1) it was really expensive and (2) though they kept extended immunity from prosecution participation was at only 25% of long gun owners.

If the time every comes every person is going to have to make a decision about what they want to do. Do you give up all your guns? Do you bury them? From my view of history (Germany, China, Russia) when the .gov comes for your guns nothing good is going to happen. I am going between I sold them all in private sales or I had a tragic boating accident with all my guns on board. My opinions of what others will do. I think the West, Midwest and South aren't going to be giving up a lot of guns. Most gun owners in the coasts and in NE will turn them over.

 

[kenno]

America is on the verge of seeing a military force composed of unmanned droids armed with "Less Than Lethal" weapons. Why destroy a city when you can drive out it's population like a herd of rats or sheep to an area specificaly prepared for thier "Processing"?
In 5 years America will be Fundementaly Transformed it will either revert to a Constitutional Republic or be destroyed and resurected as a slave state. Of course it will not be called a slave state it will be called a People's Collective.
Many new "Green Power Plants" will be built, the kind that use humans for fuel, they will be identicle to the ones errected in the former Israel and for the same purpose the ashen remains of 30-90 million PPL will be used to fertilize the landscape (Green Power).

 

[EZLivin]

America is on the verge of seeing a military force composed of unmanned droids armed with "Less Than Lethal" weapons. Why destroy a city when you can drive out it's population like a herd of rats or sheep to an area specificaly prepared for thier "Processing"?
In 5 years America will be Fundementaly Transformed it will either revert to a Constitutional Republic or be destroyed and resurected as a slave state. Of course it will not be called a slave state it will be called a People's Collective.
Many new "Green Power Plants" will be built, the kind that use humans for fuel, they will be identicle to the ones errected in the former Israel and for the same purpose the ashen remains of 30-90 million PPL will be used to fertilize the landscape (Green Power).

Ok, I will probably regret this, but...

What the heck good is a leaving a city intact if the population has been "processed." Is the real estate going to be sold to the Chinese? Personally, I would not want to buy real estate in a country where they process humans.

Why do they need human ashes for fertilizer? There is plenty of potash around, and other sources, without pi$$ing off the population by asking them to become bags of fertilzer. Again, that is not conducive to maintaining the social order. The folks who would try setting up that system would likely end up being the first ones in the bag, with the company going broke shortly after that. The U.S. might be slipping into Idiocracy, but the population is not even close to letting Carl's Junior take their kids.

Extra Big *** Fries - YouTube

I agree with you on us being "fundamentally transformed" in the next few years though. Hope we make the right decisions.

 

[BSG 75]

I know this is VERY hypothetical and there isn't a true answer but maybe someone could shed some light on realistic possibilities with real life examples. How would it happen? Will hand guns one day just be outlawed?

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Washington, DC and Chicago handgun bans were unconstitutional
DC v Heller DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
McDonald v Chicago Mv. CHICAGO

Support for a handgun ban is at an all-time low

October 26, 2011
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.

Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban

Rifles/shotguns?

All rifles and shotguns, no. But another "assault weapon" ban is not impossible. Mitt Romney applauded and signed such a ban in Massachusetts only 8 years ago.

Does having things stocked up matter if they were outlawed? Like ammo and firearms?

People hoard those things out of fear of a general breakdown in civil order (AKA SHTF or TEOTWAWKI) not because of possible bans.

Would police come searching houses of gun owners and confiscate everything that was found?

No, that's Too Much Work. They would announce that the banned firearms had to be surrendered by a certain date and most gun owners, being law abiding, would comply. It would be like one of mayor Sam Adams' gun buy-back events, but without the gift cards.

But again, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people don't support a general ban on handguns, rifles, or shotguns, so it is unlikely to happen in the US.

Or will it be slow like mags limited to 10 rounds, concealed permits taken away or made harder to get?

That's possible at a state level. That's the way it is already in California.

The momentum and power is currently on the pro-gun rights side. Things are getting better, not worse, overall.



The anti-gun rights side is very frustrated that even after the Tucson shooting and other recent mass shootings they haven't been able to exploit those tragedies to push for new laws. They complain constantly and bitterly about the power of the NRA. The antis think the NRA is about 10 times more powerful than it really is, and that's a good thing.

However, guys like George Zimmerman play right into the hands of the antis, and help them portray gun owners, especially those who carry outside the home, as trigger-happy wannabe vigilantes.



Sometimes we make it too easy for the antis.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but don't get sucked into the fear and paranoia some like to spread. Gun rights in the US are the strongest they have been in the last 40 years.

 

[deen_ad]

Gun rights in the US are the strongest they have been in the last 40 years.

One more anti-gun Justice appointed to SCOTUS within the next four years and we're done.

 

[DEADTIME]

Most people don't want Obamcare but you will get it anyway, what does what the majority want have to do with what the glorious leader decides is best for you. And if it go's bad...well he will blame Bush like he always does.

 

[beavertonbuck]

Why do you think we would be "done"?

I don't what Deen is thinking but the issue is that if there is one more anti-gun Justice they will be in the majority. Any cases that involve gun rights will end up with further restrictions on our right to own certain types of firearms/right to carry firearms. They could also overturn Heller though that would be a tough opinion.

Look at how much has come gun rights have changed with the current SCOTUS and imagine if all these cases had gone against us.

 

[hermannr]

Depends if we get rid of Obama, or not. And if we get Romney, will his weather vane be pointing the right direction when appoints any new Supreme Court justices.

I just find it so sad that all the gun owners cannot understand that Ron Paul is their best bet for free unrestricted, constitutional, laws. To H*** with all the "entitlements" and other give me's..and I am on Social Security.

 

[biggie24420]

We need to change the current way the government is. We do need to impeach Obaman and make an example out of him but we won't because if we had the balls, we would have impeached Bush. If the next president is not Obama, that president will probably be just as bad. Mittens Romney is another shyster, so don't fool yourselves by thinking that things will change anytime soon unless you the PEOPLE change. It's a mafia government people, they call themselves Democrats and Republicans but any self respecting, awakened adult calls them the Gambinos and Bananas.
If they want to send the S.W.A.T and the military to my house to take my guns away..... let them. If the officer or the solder is so dumb as to want to violate my constitution rights/privileges.... well he or she is not only an enemy to this country, but an enemy of mine and all enemies foreign and or domestic have to be neutralized! That is my duty as a citizen of the United States and I will stand my ground. I don't condone violence and we have to fight with our minds and words and not with firearms but if that is our last resort.... well the enemy has made that decision for us.

I too would say that we need to study the past because if we don't study history, we are doomed to repeat it again. We are slaves and slaves don't get to own guns and have rights in this country (that is the elite's way of thinking).

And honestly there are too many people with guns in this country, so if someone resists answering the door I can see them setting your house on fire.... remember WACO anyone?

 

[Otter]

We will have more gun rights than less in that time frame. I would bet on it. BSG 75 posted an accurate picture of reality The conceal carry example is very representative. The majority of citizens in the US still favor armed civilians and as long as that is the majority opinion, our second admendment rights are not going to be touched. The courts have already ruled and laws restricting gun ownership are un-constitutional. One of the cool things about our legal system is that court decisions are based on precedent. Once a court has ruled, especially the Supreme Court, it is very unusual for another court to go against that decision. That erodes the foundation of the very legal system judges are swarn to up hold.

 

[Burt Gummer]

What COULD happen in the next 4-5 years? Most of us could be dead and the great experiment known as America could be gone forever. I love guns, and I love my 2nd Amendment 'liberties', but I worry about bigger fish.

 

[BSG 75]

I don't what Deen is thinking but the issue is that if there is one more anti-gun Justice they will be in the majority. Any cases that involve gun rights will end up with further restrictions on our right to own certain types of firearms/right to carry firearms. They could also overturn Heller though that would be a tough opinion.

Look at how much has come gun rights have changed with the current SCOTUS and imagine if all these cases had gone against us.

But they didn't go against us, and now they are legal precedent. Even if they decide there is no right to carry a concealed weapon, which Scalia already hinted about in Heller:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

that wouldn't mean we are "done", or it is the end of the world, or all guns are going to be banned, or any other paranoid fantasies like that are going to come true.

Even if there is no change in the current court it is possible they would not say there is a right to carry a concealed weapon. But that wouldn't mean concealed carry would instantly become illegal, it would just mean that any state that wanted to ban it could. But most states don't want to ban it, quite the opposite, as the graphic I posted earlier shows states have become less restrictive about concealed carry over the years.

After Heller and McDonald total gun bans are out. If you read the dissents in McDonald it is clear that Breyer is the most anti-gun justice. He thinks Heller was wrongly decided and thinks it should be overturned. But the principal of stare decisis is going to make it hard for the court to do that.

Short of overturning Heller and/or McDonald, there is little the Supreme Court can do to make it so we are "done", so I think it is exaggeration to think that if the balance of the Supreme Court changes we are "done". The Justice most likely to retire or die next is Ginsburg, a liberal, so even if her replacement is a liberal (and just as George H.W. Bush appointed the liberal Justice Souter, a liberal moderate "conservative" President Romney could appoint a liberal) the balance of the Court would remain the same.

 

[Misterbill]

But they didn't go against us, and now they are legal precedent. Even if they decide there is no right to carry a concealed weapon, which Scalia already hinted about in Heller:



that wouldn't mean we are "done", or it is the end of the world, or all guns are going to be banned, or any other paranoid fantasies like that are going to come true.

Even if there is no change in the current court it is possible they would not say there is a right to carry a concealed weapon. But that wouldn't mean concealed carry would instantly become illegal, it would just mean that any state that wanted to ban it could. But most states don't want to ban it, quite the opposite, as the graphic I posted earlier shows states have become less restrictive about concealed carry over the years.

After Heller and McDonald total gun bans are out. If you read the dissents in McDonald it is clear that Breyer is the most anti-gun justice. He thinks Heller was wrongly decided and thinks it should be overturned. But the principal of stare decisis is going to make it hard for the court to do that.

Short of overturning Heller and/or McDonald, there is little the Supreme Court can do to make it so we are "done", so I think it is exaggeration to think that if the balance of the Supreme Court changes we are "done". The Justice most likely to retire or die next is Ginsburg, a liberal, so even if her replacement is a liberal (and just as George H.W. Bush appointed the liberal Justice Souter, a liberal moderate "conservative" President Romney could appoint a liberal) the balance of the Court would remain the same.

It's much more suited to the right-wing paranoid persecution complex if you just agree that any democrat will mean instant socialism. This would mean a "papers please" kind of country where any person was submitted to a star forum ON THE SPOT to prove they weren't a terrorist. -O wait, I just described the GOP in Arizona...Wait, must re-compute...system failure...

You Fox viewers seriously need to get out a little more.

 

[Mikej]

what could happen to our gun rights in the next 4-5 years?

Nothing? Do I win a prize? I sure hope so...........

Don't you people EVER get tired of talking about how Obama is going to "Take Away Our Guns"?
What a bunch of SHIZZLE! Why don't all the alarmists keep this crap to the POLITICS forum, that way it'll be easier for me to avoid it!

Loved the cool map of the states though BSG75.

Mike

 

[JimmyS1985]

While I do like the conservative justices stance on guns, there is a lot of issues that they rule on that I dont like, such as restricting womens reproductive health rights, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore.

While I don't understand Obamacare, I think the Onion nailed it when it said that conservative lawyers cited a "Kids with pre-existing conditions can go bubblegum themselves" clause in the constitution as making Obamacare
unconstitutional.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/lawyers-opposing-health-care-law-cite-kidswithpree,27761/

I constantly hear about how the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, but the real question is, what do they have to replace it with once it is repealed? Because the Health Insurance Industry was raping the public pretty hard, year after year, under lack of government oversight.

 

[hermannr]

Have any of you read this? In re BRICKEY.

This is "in re Brickley" a very famous decision by the Idaho State Supreme Court in 1902. Unlike most court rulings, this one is very short, sweet and to the point. It is also why several states, including Idaho, have unlicensed open carry.

IMHO: when the US Supreme finishes with (if it ends up there and I think it will) the case at hand, specifically The Volokh Conspiracy » Right to carry victory in Maryland: Woollard v. Sheridan ... the US equivilant of "in re Brickley" is what we will have for a ruling (except it will take them 300 pages instead of one paragraph.)

Also, In my humble opinion, this is why a lot of states now have concealed carry licenses...to keep the unlicensed open carry to a minimum.

 

[Dayu]

Nothing will happen to your rights. There may be laws passed which infringe on them, and you may elect to not exercise them rather than risk jail or death. More than a few of you will decide to bowb your buddy and his rights to save your own rump from some problems.

But otherwise, nothing particularly special within the context of an empire in decay.