Skip to comments.Could the govenment ban guns?
Posted on 03/25/2009 5:28:12 AM PDT by marktwain
The week Barack Obama was elected president, the amount of criminal background checks related to the purchase of firearms jumped 49 percent over the previous year, FBI statistics show.
Its a trend that hasnt ceased to stop, as background checks for firearm purchases have continued to increase in the months following the November election, when compared to the same time a year ago. February alone witnessed a 23.3 percent jump, and January and December werent too far ahead, with 29 and 24 percent increases, respectively.
Fears of possible anti-gun legislation thats being considered by the Obama administration might be contributing to the rise in sales, as well as the teeter-tottering economy. The angst seems to be somewhat legitimate, although at this time its unclear whether a push to reinstate the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, commonly referred to as the assault weapons ban will be successful.
Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons, Attorney General Eric Holder said during a press conference last month that focused on growing violence in Mexico.
According to the State Department, drug cartels are using automatic weapons and grenades in confrontations against Mexican army and police units. The idea is by putting the ban back in place, the flow of guns into Mexico would be reduced.
Enacted in 1994 under then-president Bill Clinton, the assault weapons ban prohibited 19 specific firearms in addition to the possession, manufacturing and importation of the semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds for civilian use.
Though a bill to reinstate the act hasnt been introduced in Congress yet, and Holder hasnt given a timeline for when that might happen, numerous other pieces of legislation have been. Six U.S. House of Representative bills are currently being considered, the most troubling of which, gun-rights advocates say, is H.R. 45, known as the Blair Holts Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. If the legislation is successful, it would require a license for handguns and semiautomatic firearms, including those people already own. License applicants would have to under go a background check and take a written firearms examination, meant to test the applicants knowledge of safe storage and handling of guns, as well as the risks associated with the use of firearms in a home, legal responsibilities of owners of such weapons and any other subject, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate.
Furthermore, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of crimes by omission... would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established, according to Gun Owners of America, a non-profit lobbying organization led by former senator Bill Richardson.
The bill would also make it unlawful to sell or transfer a qualifying firearm to any person who is not licensed.
Other legislation includes H.R. 17 which would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and the defense of a persons home and family; H.R. 1074 would permit the interstate sale of firearms as long as the laws of the states are complied with and adhere to federal law.
Bill Morris, Military Pro owner, said sales at his shop have increased as rumors about possible legislation circulate.
A lot of customers are afraid that the guns they enjoy shooting so much for sports are going to be restricted, Morris said. A lot of the firearms people use for hunting and have used for a long time are being threatened.
Morris, whos owned Military Pro for five years, spent 20 years in law enforcement and said hes been an active shooter for longer than that, shared his perspective on current legislation, noting that much of it, he doesnt believe, is responsible.
Its kind of like wanting to ban a car with four wheels, he said, noting that most vehicles do have four wheels, but that doesnt mean all cars are dangerous. Theres some responsibility needed when a bill is introduced so that any attempt on a firearm ban would ban something that is truly destructive rather than something blanket, he said.
Pam Hutsell, the stores manager, said in addition to the rise in sales, theyre finding its getting more difficult to get certain firearms as manufacturers have the items on backorder because of the increase in demand.
What weve found is its been harder to get guns, Hutsell said. After the election, it seems like a lot of people were more afraid that there were going to be more (restrictions) put on guns.
The NRA has come out against any such restrictions, and said of the proposal to make the federal assault weapons ban permanent is unnecessary.
Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime, the NRA-ILA stated.
Guns that were affected by the ban are used in a only a tiny fraction of violent crime about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm, the organization said.
A Supreme Court decision in 2003 in the case of Washington, D.C., v Heller, reaffirmed the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms. The amendment, ratified in 1791, says, A well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Though the spike in gun sales might be an early overreaction to an uncertain agenda, theres still plenty of questions lingering that are asking what the government can, and will, actually do.
I hear a lot of comments daily; What did you hear? What did you hear?, Morris said. We dont know where its going because theres so many rumors.
Gun legislation is a toxic issue sure to hurt the democrats in 2010.
They can try, but.....
People are buying arms and ammunition because they expect that they’re going to have to use them. And they’re right.
Since I sold all my guns recently :), I’m just buying ammo because I believe it will be currency within a few years...
Anyone know anywhere to buy 9mm?
Every place I look it’s sold out, unavailable, or backordered.
I use these bot ha lot. The stock at ammunition to go is hit and miss. You just have to see what they have in stock at the time. Cabelas will let you back order most items and they’ll ship as soon as they are back in stock.
Better idea.....we use our guns to ban this government.
Right before we change the government.
It could try.
Gun bans are an interesting window in the minds of (some) liberals. Their view on gun bans, in my opinion, is an example of “magical thinking.”
They believe that banning guns will somehow make violence vanish overnight, and never give any thought to how 300 million firearms are going to be disposed of. It’s almost as if they think the legislative pen is the equivalent of a magic wand, and waving it makes the bad guns go away.
Actually, they believe that banning guns will make
They can pass a Law. That does not mean it’ll be Constitutional, that it’d survive a Court challenge, or that any attempt to confiscate currently legal firearms wouldn’t pretty much trigger “Civil War II”.
There is that, but I’m referring to the garden-variety starry-eyed moonbats.
I visited Ron Barrett’s new gun store south of Murfreesboro TN at Exit 89 on I-24 the other day and they had a stack of cases of 9mm ammunition.
Of course, but could they enforce that ban?
When Obama finishes "lefting" the courts, the constitution will not matter any more.
I’m already of the opinion that the Courts are already past saving. I felt it necessary to include that for those who are still suffering the delusion that they have that option.
All that repeated stopping makes this a hard trend to understand. Sigh.... Must be a urinalism skewl grad.
After he controls the supremes, Dont forget he said his Brownshirts will be bigger than ALL of Armed Forces and BETTER FUNDED so his mailed fist will me in evidence. He can’t control drugs but there is a lot of money involved.
Only way the gunnies can win is How?
England tried that with us in 1775. Didn’t work then, either. We changed governments. We can do it again.
That’s one more box of liberty they’ve removed.
They need to realize we’ll use whatever box of liberty we have left.
I really don’t get the idea where the government believes they can limit or ban a certain firearm for any number of arbitrary reasons, aside from “precedent,” of which the Jim Crow Laws were obviously racist in manner.
Verbal mayhem ping! I just can't visualize "hasn't ceased to stop" at all, and it's too early to apply adult beverages to the situation.
Wow. Let's take this one apart, shall we, lol?
If the trend hasn't ceased, then it hasn't stopped. If it hasn't stopped, it's ongoing. So we have a trend in an ongoing stop.
So, it's stopped. Still. But, it might not always be. It's an ongoing thing.
Why isn't writing ability a pre-qualification to be a journalist?
I think you need a Guinness already.
BTW, Could somebody give me a few really good examples of a tautology? I've always wanted to use that word correctly, and I've never been fully confident that I got it right.
They say they have Remington 9MM.
That’s a tough one. I know them when I see them, but I can’t think of an example right now.
The Heller decision reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It's important to realize the repealing the Second Amendment would change our government but it would not change our rights.
Virgo Dei genitrix,
quem totus non capit orbis,
In tua clausit viscera
I missed that. Well it’s not like you need an edumacation or something to be a journalist. LOL.
Remind me not to place any orders for ..well..anything with Military Pro.
"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me, but obviously not ex "law enforcement" officer Morris. Guns and other arms are *supposed* to be dangerous.
“Moving box” refers to the ability to move to another state within the USA if the policies & laws of that state are not agreeable and you can’t affect satisfactory change.
This is one of the primary reasons the left implements all of their policies at the federal level - instinctively, they want to control you, so allowing you to move to another state to avoid that control is abhorrent to them.
Could America elect an illegal alien?
A sentence or phrase that, while technically correct, states the same thing twice and then equates them, thus conveying no meaning: "If you can't find what you're looking for, you're not looking in the right place." (Check for tautology if you find yourself tempted to reply "No $hit, Sherlock!")
Less severe: A sentence that conveys meaning but is unnecessarily redundant, as "I saw it with my own eyes".
Sometimes place names where the proper name is taken from a foreign language and the geographical feature part are in English are redundant. "Laguna Lake", "Glendale".
Essentially the opposite of an oxymoron like "Microsoft Works".
Hey, they passed a law and made us drive 55 when Jimma Carter was President! /sarcism
Hey, Tax-chick, check out #43 for some good tautologies.
The ones I could think of are: "Survival of the fittest" (because "fittest" is implicitly defined as "those who survive," so it essentially means, "Survival of those who survive.")
And the old stand-by, "A true Scot does not put sugar on his oatmeal," in all its variations. ("But Angus MacPherson of Aberdeen does!" -- "Ach, but then he's no true Scot!")
“I made a wrong mistake” — Yogi Berra
"in this everchanging world in which we live in"
surely deserves a mention.
Sounds like global warming.
You got it. Global “climate change”.
That’s a good one.
Some acronyms are intentionally self-referencing, like GNU (for “Gnu’s Not Unix”; any letter would have worked as the first one)