Posted: 11/6/2012 10:55:50 PM EDT
| So how screwed are we as gun owners? I'm just asking about guns and gun stuff, not the rest of all our ills. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. Thankfully that's not how EOs work.  He may be able to stop imports of "assault weapons", but that would be about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. He could try it, but it wouldn't hold up in court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. He could try it, but it wouldn't hold up in court. And what court is that? Scalia is 76, and there's a chance Obama will be replacing him during this term. If Ginsberg goes, he could hardly set anyone worse loose upon us. But if Scalia goes, all of those close 5-4 votes go against us next time. Remember, per the courts Obamacare is clearly a tax. And it originated in the Senate, which is clearly illegal. But we all know it's not going anywhere- even with the "good" courts we already have. The ballot box is obviously no longer worker, and the jury box is badly damaged as well at this point. |
|
I am hopeful that the House will be a firewall preventing any future restrictions on firearms.
Having said that, there was an article in the November issue of the NRA magazine "First Freedom" that presented a scenario where the Obama adminstration classified most firearms as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act" and thus requiring application for tax stamps just like SBR's, underlength shotguns, etc. The scenario went on to theorize what would happen to non compliant individuals etc. It was a very scary article. ***Edited to add link below**** http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/14512/heres-what-could-happen-if-you-dont-defeat-obama/ The article was pretty thorough in presenting administration positions on "lost, stolen, or sold" firearms placing the burden of proof on the owner and prosecuting those falling short of the burden of proof. Federal authorities have tremendous power and resources to prosecute and ruin lives financially, criminally, or otherwise whether convictions are upheld or not. I don't know if the article presents a realistic scenario within the realm of the possible or was just playing on fear to boost NRA donations and/or get out the gun vote. Scary stuff though nonetheless. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. He could try it, but it wouldn't hold up in court. And what court is that? Scalia is 76, and there's a chance Obama will be replacing him during this term. If Ginsberg goes, he could hardly set anyone worse loose upon us. But if Scalia goes, all of those close 5-4 votes go against us next time. Remember, per the courts Obamacare is clearly a tax. And it originated in the Senate, which is clearly illegal. But we all know it's not going anywhere- even with the "good" courts we already have. The ballot box is obviously no longer worker, and the jury box is badly damaged as well at this point. I think Scalia will hang in until at lest 2016 as well as Thomas. I believe these 2 clearly understand what is stake. My worry is that Kennedy will retire and give Obama an opportunity for an appointment. He is the same age as Scalia. Kennedy is the swing vote on the court and voted with the majority on recent pro 2nd Amendment cases such as Chicago v McDonald and D.C. v Heller. I share your concern's on the court, but will be surprised if Scalia and/or Thomas step down, Kennedy on the other hand is a grey area. Some in the media reported that Kennedy was pissed at Roberts for siding with Obama on "Obama Care" and that may provide some indication that Kennedy will stick around at least until 2016 as one of the last defenders of the Constitution and the Republic. Remember to keep Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in your prayers for continuing good health and long life. These guys are truly the last line of defense against the march of progressivism. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. He could try it, but it wouldn't hold up in court. And what court is that? Scalia is 76, and there's a chance Obama will be replacing him during this term. If Ginsberg goes, he could hardly set anyone worse loose upon us. But if Scalia goes, all of those close 5-4 votes go against us next time. Remember, per the courts Obamacare is clearly a tax. And it originated in the Senate, which is clearly illegal. But we all know it's not going anywhere- even with the "good" courts we already have. The ballot box is obviously no longer worker, and the jury box is badly damaged as well at this point. I think Scalia will hang in until at lest 2016 as well as Thomas. I believe these 2 clearly understand what is stake. My worry is that Kennedy will retire and give Obama an opportunity for an appointment. He is the same age as Scalia. Kennedy is the swing vote on the court and voted with the majority on recent pro 2nd Amendment cases such as Chicago v McDonald and D.C. v Heller. I share your concern's on the court, but will be surprised if Scalia and/or Thomas step down, Kennedy on the other hand is a grey area. Some in the media reported that Kennedy was pissed at Roberts for siding with Obama on "Obama Care" and that may provide some indication that Kennedy will stick around at least until 2016 as one of the last defenders of the Constitution and the Republic. Remember to keep Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in your prayers for continuing good health and long life. These guys are truly the last line of defense against the march of progressivism. Hopefully Kennedy remains sufficiently pissed about the healthcare ruling to hang on. And no, I can't believe I said it either. Any port in a storm, I guess. But Obama gets to start the clock over again for the Ginsberg and (maybe) Breyer seats. |
|
Quoted:
hopefully 2014 senate GOP can pick up some seats to balance out. Hopefully they can avoid the rape/abortion debate... .. another reason for EVERYONE to do everything possible, NATIONWIDE, to get Conservatives into the Congress, especially the Senate. 3-2-1, GO !! |
|
Quoted:
Chances not good. UN Treaty already back in play. Senate ratifies treaties.  I am concerned about this as well, but yet some optimism remains. It takes a 2/3 vote by the Senate to ratify a treaty. That would require I believe 66 or 67(2/3 of 100??) votes. After yesterdays election there are 53 Democrats, 2 Independents (caucus with Dems) and 45 Republicans in the Senate. Even if the Democrats could get all of their members and both Independents to vote for ratification, they would also have to pull at least 10 Republicans with them maybe 11 depending on whether the Vice President gets a vote to put them over the required 2/3 majority. I just don't see this scenario happening. I don't think the "blue dog" Democrats from the western and southern states would go along with this, but most importantly I am skeptical they could get even 10 Republican Senators to vote for ratification. Senator Moran (R) Kansas last week sent a letter to Obama and the Secretary of State opposing the UN arms treaty. It was signed by 50 senators, 8 of these Democrats. Their were 4 Republican Senators not signing all of these were defeated by Democrats yesterday with the exception of McCain. I don't know who the 8 Democrats were signing onto this, but based on this I have some optimism that this treaty will not be ratified any time soon. The math just isn't there for now to ratify this thing. However, once a treaty is signed by an administration, I don't think there is a time limit for ratification. This thing could just sit waiting for the right political environment for ratification. That's one of the reasons I support the NRA as a watchdog for this type of threat. http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/240611-moran-rallies-50-senators-to-oppose-arms-treaty |
|
Quoted:
hopefully 2014 senate GOP can pick up some seats to balance out. Hopefully they can avoid the rape/abortion debate... Akin and Murdock deserve all the scorn in the world for opening their neanderthan mouths and losing two easy wins for the R's. Seriously, WTF?? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
hopefully 2014 senate GOP can pick up some seats to balance out. Hopefully they can avoid the rape/abortion debate... Akin and Murdock deserve all the scorn in the world for opening their neanderthan mouths and losing two easy wins for the R's. Seriously, WTF?? QFT |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also look for regulations, especially for manufacturers of powder & primers. The EPA seems to be one of their favorite tools to use to hammer on businesses. This, I expect we will see Ammo taxed at higher rates. Taxes..maybe...EPA...doubtful. Most commercial powder producers also have international and national government contracts which might keep the EPA at bay. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. Thankfully that's not how EOs work.
He may be able to stop imports of "assault weapons", but that would be about it. My mistake! I did some more research and found it was part of a law that congress passed. Thank you for giving me a reason to look further into the clinton era ban 
|
|
I would assume that internet sales of ammo would be the first "low hanging fruit" they assault
but honestly, just an internet sales tax would bring prices closer to parity with local "reasonable" stores and this would just be counterproductive with cash purchases done locally the gun control crowd has tried and tried for firearms, I would expect them to concentrate on limiting ammo purchases who knows |
|
As quoted from another thread:
On the "bright" side, we now know some things we didn't know last night: - First, we know who's going to occupy the WH for the next 4 years. - Second, we know that Congress is going to be grid-locked for at least 2 years. (More on that in a moment.) -Third, we know that Obamacare will not be repealed. This in particular means: –– The first taxes start in January –– Large numbers of businesses will be converting people from 40hr/wk to 30hr/wk to avoid the Obamacare mandates. This will cause an immediate 25% reduction in the incomes of working families. There may be some hiring to cover the personnel shortfall, but all those will be part timers (We're already seeing that trend in the cooked job-numbers books.) –– Huge benefit changes will occur starting next year (or immediately, depending on who you believe) that will cost workers a ton of money to replace –– Health care providers (and insurance companies) will now start to implement their Odumbocare plans they were hoping not to - Fourth, the "fiscal cliff" is overblown. Why? Because with a split Congress and Odumbo in charge, the only thing that will happen is that they will repeal the part of last years budget agreement that creates the cliff. All in the spirit of "bipartisanship", of course. So, can gets kicked down the road. Entitlement reform? Not going to happen for at least 4 years. Four years we don't have, btw. - Fifth, we know that the Bush tax cuts will expire in January. With Dems controlling the Senate and Odumbo not having to face the wrath of voters, the tax cuts are history. - Sixth, now that the course for at least the next 2 years is settled, all that money "sitting on the sidelines" will continue to do so. Businesses are likely to hunker down for the upcoming recession. - Seventh, we know now that a recession is baked into the cake starting 4Q12 or 1Q13. Just the tax increases alone will assure that. Whether the recession turns into a depression will depend on whether the Congress kicks the can or not. If the fiscal cliff happens (or Europe implodes now that the election is over) then depression follows. - Eighth, we know that King Odumbo will be far more likely to rule by fiat than before because, again, he doesn't have to face the wrath of the voters, Congress is deadlocked, and he'll get at least one more bite at the Supreme Court apple before he's done. Not to mention all the Appellate and other Federal level bench seats. - Nine, we now know how big the FSA really has become. It is larger, by far, than in 2008. If the growth in the size of this demographic is not arrested, we won't have a free, capitalist republic for long. On the guns side, Odumbo could certainly make new regulations for firearms manufacturers well beyond what they are subjected to currently. They could do the same to ammo. For example, they could change the regulations on the shipment of ammo to make it all but impossible to mail order. They could also use regulations to require extraordinary measures to ensure the transfers are done "correctly" and/or to make sure that felons/terrorists don't get them, you see. Keep in mind that since PlaceHolder is in charge of prosecutions (or should I say the lack thereof), that over-the-top regulators and/or LEOs will basically have free reign to run roughshod over people's rights. Taxes, of course, are the other huge club that can be used. Since the .gov needs money (badly), don't be surprised if the massive surge in gun and ammo sales isn't used as a target of opportunity to raise cash. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if we'll see any legislation, but the SCOTUS will be the real problem if any conservatives leave. This is much my feeling as well. I don't see how the GOP controlled House will pass any anti-gun legislation and expect to have anything good happen for them on the midterm election. The SCOTUS stuff is a lot less set in stone. TR AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. Thankfully that's not how EOs work.
He may be able to stop imports of "assault weapons", but that would be about it. He'll stop the import of ammo. No more Wolf, Brown bear, Privi Partisan, PMC... US made ammo will skyrocket and be really hard to get. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. Thankfully that's not how EOs work. He may be able to stop imports of "assault weapons", but that would be about it. He'll stop the import of ammo. No more Wolf, Brown bear, Privi Partisan, PMC... US made ammo will skyrocket and be really hard to get. I agree he can make things more difficult, but he can't make things illegal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. Thankfully that's not how EOs work.
He may be able to stop imports of "assault weapons", but that would be about it. He'll stop the import of ammo. No more Wolf, Brown bear, Privi Partisan, PMC... US made ammo will skyrocket and be really hard to get. I agree he can make things more difficult, but he can't make things illegal. What exactly is stopping him? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AWB via exective order, congress does not have to pass anything. Thankfully that's not how EOs work.
He may be able to stop imports of "assault weapons", but that would be about it. He'll stop the import of ammo. No more Wolf, Brown bear, Privi Partisan, PMC... US made ammo will skyrocket and be really hard to get. I agree he can make things more difficult, but he can't make things illegal. What exactly is stopping him? Given his own narcissim, precisely nothing. I seriously doubt that he even cares if the 2014 mid-terms were a raging blow-out that left the D's with 30 Senate seats and low double digits in the House. He's politically done, knows it, and everyone else can FOAD. |
|
Quoted:
Given his ownnarcissismm, precisely nothing. I seriously doubt that he even cares if the 2014 mid-terms were a raging blow-out that left the D's with 30 Senate seats and low double digits in the House. He's politically done, knows it, and everyone else can FOAD. Agree 100%. Obama doesn't care about the U.S. He wants to see himself as ruler of the world. The U.S. is simply a section of his constituency. He wants to be popular with the world, the U.S. be damned. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I agree he can make things more difficult, but he can't make things illegal. What exactly is stopping him? While I like tinfoil as much as the next guy around here, I still do believe that the rule of law prevails in this country. Maybe I'm just an optimist.  |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Originally Posted By VA-Gunnut
While I like tinfoil as much as the next guy around here, I still do believe that the rule of law prevails in this country. Maybe I'm just an optimist.
[/quote] This statement should appear in probably hundreds of threads on this site right now |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree he can make things more difficult, but he can't make things illegal. What exactly is stopping him? While I like tinfoil as much as the next guy around here, I still do believe that the rule of law prevails in this country. Maybe I'm just an optimist.
I would like to believe that as well, but its difficult to do so: Obamacare passed and deemed a tax, but not passed in the manner taxes are required. Doesn't matter, stands anyway. Sec of HHS campaigns illegally using fed resources. Doesn't matter, no consequences. Senator Franken clearly shown to be elected through voter fraud. Doesn't matter, he remains a Senator anyway. Fast and Furious- no explanation needed. And the list goes on and on... This administration has clearly shown that they consider themselves above the law. And what really is telling is that they're right. 
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.