Looking at the Obama gun plan

First off, the executive orders.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...violence-plan/

Most of these are quite reasonable IMO. Some in fact have been called for by gun owners for years. This one is notable:

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Isn't that putting security in schools, i.e. putting guns in schools like the NRA suggested? Think anyone will talk about Obama "caving to the NRA"?

I have a few issues with this one, but you can always just refuse to answer:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Still not "bad". I worry about where a few things will go but nothing major, hair on fire, and that's obviously from someone convinced the President would round up every gun in America if he could. He supported all the Illinois efforts to do so.


Now for the stuff he wants congress to do. Sadly not as good. Fortunately tough to pass.

1) Near universal background checks. No one is "against" background checks, they're just terrified that the "gun registry" is coming and don't trust the government to stop at just the checks. Same thing we faced with the Brady Bill that established the check system.

Exceptions for some things like family transfers. I'm not 100% against this, but I am afraid of the registry.

My biggest concern is this: since this will do nothing to stop the next mass shooting, I get this sense I'm giving something up full well knowing they're just going to come back for my next chip and I have fewer chips to give. Purely a strategic/political reaction, but also the truth. i'm 100% sure it has nothing to do with school shootings, but does tie to gun crime generally, but it's the mass shootings that create the push for these things.

Biggest point: this has NOTHING to do with Newtown, Aurora, Va Tech, none of them. None of those guns were bought outside the background check system. this is just a political rider on this tragedy. it may even be an OK idea, but it doesn't do a THING to improve the safety of our children.

I'd support it with some trepidation. I worry when I sell a gun to someone if they're selling it to someone who shouldn't have it. I do what I can, but if I had to run the background check on the person they sold it to I have to admit I'd feel a LOT better.

2) Assault weapons. Totally idiotic. Has no chance of preventing another shooting, and so few people are killed with "assault weapons" it's minute and none of them will be stopped either.

Totally for show, does nothing to improve public safety. Since the justification to remove a right like owning a particular gun must be an improvement in public safety significant enough to justify removing the right, this fails on its face.

Dead set against this one.

3) High cap magazine ban. Even worse. Has even less chance of preventing the next shooting or reducing the number killed, and has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence either, as opposed ot having almost nothing to do with it re assault weapons.

It also would cover handguns, which is a huge pain in the butt but also can limit self defense. In something like a home invasion people will not be great shots, will simply shoot down the hall at their attacker. They won't have multiple magazines tucked in their pajamas nor will be in great position to change them. Having more ammo in one magazine is a benefit. with mass shootings they're prepared, they're ready and armed with multiple guns or magazines, the extra 3-4 rounds in the handgun are meaningless. They could safe a life though in a self defense situation.

4) Armor piercing bullet ban Has ANYONE, I mean ANYONE been murdered with armor piercing bullets? Uh, no. You know why? They're ALREADY BANNED for all but the most tightly licensed use. No civilian without a pile of licenses could buy them. Basically weapons manufacturers and military contractors with licenses to construct and discharge explosives.

That's people who make and fire RPGs and such. There is no problem with that ammo being stolen (just like the RPGs), no one else has it, and it's never used in crimes.

So it's only going to impact specialty companies that may defend nuclear facilities and such, the only non-military end users of such things. Why even list this one? Purely for show, I bet no armor piercing rounds have been used in a shooting in decades, since they were banned during the Reagan administration.

So not a big swipe at our rights, but swinging in the wind for no reason. Just silly.

5) Gun Trafficking laws for straw purchases This one is indeterminate till I see the specifics. I can tell you a LOT of people buy guns knowing they'll sell them. some have a person in mind, some just know it's going cheap and they can make some money down the line, some just want to shoot it for a while then will sell it to get their money back out.

There's no clear definition of a "straw purchase" or what finally requires you to have a dealer license based on the above mix of ways in which a gun may be purchased and sold to a third party.

I'd love to see some kind of bright line, "this is what it takes" specificity in the laws.

Ostensibly a "straw purchase" is when a third party buys a gun for a person they know couldn't pass the background check. that's a felony already. Here's the problem: the law doesn't say anything about whether that person has to know it's to avoid the NICS check. It is incredibly vague. Clearly if you're buying a gun for a person you know is a felon that's straw purchasing, but what if you're buying one as a gift for a spouse or buying one you want to shoot but know you'll sell in a month or so to get your money back out? what if you're buying it to resell but you aren't specifically trying to avoid the law and don't know if the person you sell to is qualified or not? the law just doesn't say in exact terms.

so I would LOVE to see some kind of specifications. whether I support them would depend on what they are, but i'd love to see more than this very vague, impossible to implement or prosecute standard we use today.

that is for both straw purchases and what constitute enough selling that you need a license. that is the single most unclear part of all the gun laws. I've personally asked a former deputy director of the ATF regarding some of these distinctions and he couldn't give me an answer. this was at the top of my list of things in my letter to the NRA.

Now the big missing part of this proposal:


Not one, nada, zip, zilch, executive order or legislative proposal to address violence in entertainment or video games. You know, the people who donate big money to Obama and Feinstein.

I didn't expect or want a ban, but he did issue an executive order to study causes of gun violence, why not just one to conduct a study of violence in video games and its impact on children? How about one to study the treatment of children by adult targeted anti-depressants? Some of that could fall under the CDC study, but who not explicitly look at the impact of these things on children whether they pick up a gun or not?


so in summary, the executive actions he's proposed are not IMO a big overstepping of executive authority as they mostly try to enforce existing laws better. something the NRA has pleaded for over many years. Enforce the existing laws rather than keep making new ones. Arrest people trying to buy guns illegally.

the ban part is nonsense and useless and a restriction of our rights. the good news is he's not going to try to do that with executive power, and it should die. Even Reid made a noncommittal "all options should be on the table" statement. that's political talk for "I won't support it but I can't say that on the record." The NRA was a big supporter of his in his last, very close, election. even as a senior democrat he's been an "A" rated politician by the NRA and he needs their support to keep his office.

It should also die in the House.

I think my prediction less than a week after Newtown to a partner of mine will come true, that very little will happen from it. At least federally, clearly New York and other blue states will lose their minds. That's good in that we won't see draconian gun laws, a bad thing in that the anti gun people jumped on this horror and diverted us from a lot of things that could have actually helped prevent these things in the future.

so good for gun rights, bad news for public safety, but b/c the anti-gun people turned it into a gun debate and not a school safety and public safety debate.

Quote:

---

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2IAmncqCq

---

Doesn't it suck when the very law you rammed down America's throat gets in the way of your agenda? And it only been in effect for 16 days.

One other thought. This is the dumbest statement on Earth, uttered by Obama today and others in the past:

"If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," Obama said. "When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now. ... Let's do the right thing."


No, we must not. That is the most absurd and dangerous justification for any policy. say we only had ONE death by gun in this country a year. Do we ban all guns to try to save that one life? No, sorry.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

so no, the nation was in fact founded on the idea that we don't give up rights in order to pursue safety at all costs. Not only is it an absurdity on its face, it's antithetical to the entire national mission.

there's also another disturbing part to this:

he's not really trying.

As laid out many times, nothing he's proposed except putting more SROs in schools has any chance to prevent the next such shooting. how is this trying to stop the murder of children? It's not.

so not only is that entire way of thinking both logically absurd and in fact anti-American, he's lying that he's even trying. he doesn't give a rats backside about these kids apparently, as he's been very selective in what he targets and gives obvious solutions like school security short shrift at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Doesn't it suck when the very law you rammed down America's throat gets in the way of your agenda? And it only been in effect for 16 days.

---

I laughed at that one too Doc. the medical privacy laws created an immediate limitation to the quality of background checks. many gun owners and groups pointed this out fwiw when the health care law was being debated, even HIPPA prior to Obama, to no avail.

Mental health was ruled an absolute privacy, but gun ownership is fungible. Mind you I'm for privacy with both, but it is an irony. 3-4 of those orders relate directly to the conflicts in medical privacy, including the one about doctors asking if you keep guns in the home, a privacy he doesn't seem to mind being infringed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

First off, the executive orders.
Most of these are quite reasonable IMO. Some in fact have been called for by gun owners for years. This one is notable:

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

[COLOR=#000000]
Isn't that putting security in schools, i.e. putting guns in schools like the NRA suggested? Think anyone will talk about Obama "caving to the NRA"?

I have a few issues with this one, but you can always just refuse to answer:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Still not "bad". I worry about where a few things will go but nothing major, hair on fire, and that's obviously from someone convinced the President would round up every gun in America if he could. He supported all the Illinois efforts to do so. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Because if you are a bat #### crazy maniac who is intent on killing innocent people, you are gonna to volunteer that information. LOL> [/COLOR ]


Now for the stuff he wants congress to do. Sadly not as good. Fortunately tough to pass.

1) Near universal background checks. No one is "against" background checks, they're just terrified that the "gun registry" is coming and don't trust the government to stop at just the checks. Same thing we faced with the Brady Bill that established the check system. I agree. I'm all for registering and licensing. Will that itself stop school shootings? No but you know my stance on guns being dangerous and that I believe gov't regulation of certain things is needed. Don't have an issue with this at all.

Exceptions for some things like family transfers. I'm not 100% against this, but I am afraid of the registry. Not sure I understand where you are coming from here. IMO if you own a gun you should be licensed and the gun registered regardless of the source. I don't believe there should be any type of tax or transfer fee etc

My biggest concern is this: since this will do nothing to stop the next mass shooting, I get this sense I'm giving something up full well knowing they're just going to come back for my next chip and I have fewer chips to give. Purely a strategic/political reaction, but also the truth. i'm 100% sure it has nothing to do with school shootings, but does tie to gun crime generally, but it's the mass shootings that create the push for these things. Yep, gov't never gives back anything. Its a one way street....with those spike strips

I'd support it with some trepidation. I worry when I sell a gun to someone if they're selling it to someone who shouldn't have it. I do what I can, but if I had to run the background check on the person they sold it to I have to admit I'd feel a LOT better.

2) Assault weapons. Totally idiotic. Has no chance of preventing another shooting, and so few people are killed with "assault weapons" it's minute and none of them will be stopped either.

Totally for show, does nothing to improve public safety. Since the justification to remove a right like owning a particular gun must be an improvement in public safety significant enough to justify removing the right, this fails on its face.

Dead set against this one. As am I. I've said time and time again, a responsible gun owner should be able to own whatever they want. I'm likely more anti-regulation than you on this. Heck, IMO if you want to own a fully automatic gun, you should have an avenue to do so. It might not be an easy avenue

3) High cap magazine ban. Even worse. Has even less chance of preventing the next shooting or reducing the number killed, and has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence either, as opposed ot having almost nothing to do with it re assault weapons. See above

It also would cover handguns, which is a huge pain in the butt but also can limit self defense. In something like a home invasion people will not be great shots, will simply shoot down the hall at their attacker. They won't have multiple magazines tucked in their pajamas nor will be in great position to change them. Having more ammo in one magazine is a benefit. with mass shootings they're prepared, they're ready and armed with multiple guns or magazines, the extra 3-4 rounds in the handgun are meaningless. They could safe a life though in a self defense situation. Sorry but this one I'm not buying your justification. Home invasion, 10 shots???

4) Armor piercing bullet ban Has ANYONE, I mean ANYONE been murdered with armor piercing bullets? Uh, no. You know why? They're ALREADY BANNED for all but the most tightly licensed use. No civilian without a pile of licenses could buy them. Basically weapons manufacturers and military contractors with licenses to construct and discharge explosives.

That's people who make and fire RPGs and such. There is no problem with that ammo being stolen (just like the RPGs), no one else has it, and it's never used in crimes.

So it's only going to impact specialty companies that may defend nuclear facilities and such, the only non-military end users of such things. Why even list this one? Purely for show, I bet no armor piercing rounds have been used in a shooting in decades, since they were banned during the Reagan administration. 100% show

So not a big swipe at our rights, but swinging in the wind for no reason. Just silly.

5) Gun Trafficking laws for straw purchases This one is indeterminate till I see the specifics. I can tell you a LOT of people buy guns knowing they'll sell them. some have a person in mind, some just know it's going cheap and they can make some money down the line, some just want to shoot it for a while then will sell it to get their money back out.

There's no clear definition of a "straw purchase" or what finally requires you to have a dealer license based on the above mix of ways in which a gun may be purchased and sold to a third party.

I'd love to see some kind of bright line, "this is what it takes" specificity in the laws.

Ostensibly a "straw purchase" is when a third party buys a gun for a person they know couldn't pass the background check. that's a felony already. Here's the problem: the law doesn't say anything about whether that person has to know it's to avoid the NICS check. It is incredibly vague. Clearly if you're buying a gun for a person you know is a felon that's straw purchasing, but what if you're buying one as a gift for a spouse or buying one you want to shoot but know you'll sell in a month or so to get your money back out? what if you're buying it to resell but you aren't specifically trying to avoid the law and don't know if the person you sell to is qualified or not? the law just doesn't say in exact terms.

so I would LOVE to see some kind of specifications. whether I support them would depend on what they are, but i'd love to see more than this very vague, impossible to implement or prosecute standard we use today.

that is for both straw purchases and what constitute enough selling that you need a license. that is the single most unclear part of all the gun laws. I've personally asked a former deputy director of the ATF regarding some of these distinctions and he couldn't give me an answer. this was at the top of my list of things in my letter to the NRA. With this one I laugh at the hypocrisy. Can you say "fast and furious"?

Now the big missing part of this proposal:


Not one, nada, zip, zilch, executive order or legislative proposal to address violence in entertainment or video games. You know, the people who donate big money to Obama and Feinstein.

I didn't expect or want a ban, but he did issue an executive order to study causes of gun violence, why not just one to conduct a study of violence in video games and its impact on children? How about one to study the treatment of children by adult targeted anti-depressants? Some of that could fall under the CDC study, but who not explicitly look at the impact of these things on children whether they pick up a gun or not?


so in summary, the executive actions he's proposed are not IMO a big overstepping of executive authority as they mostly try to enforce existing laws better. something the NRA has pleaded for over many years. Enforce the existing laws rather than keep making new ones. Arrest people trying to buy guns illegally.

the ban part is nonsense and useless and a restriction of our rights. the good news is he's not going to try to do that with executive power, and it should die. Even Reid made a noncommittal "all options should be on the table" statement. that's political talk for "I won't support it but I can't say that on the record." The NRA was a big supporter of his in his last, very close, election. even as a senior democrat he's been an "A" rated politician by the NRA and he needs their support to keep his office.

It should also die in the House.

I think my prediction less than a week after Newtown to a partner of mine will come true, that very little will happen from it. At least federally, clearly New York and other blue states will lose their minds. That's good in that we won't see draconian gun laws, a bad thing in that the anti gun people jumped on this horror and diverted us from a lot of things that could have actually helped prevent these things in the future.

so good for gun rights, bad news for public safety, but b/c the anti-gun people turned it into a gun debate and not a school safety and public safety debate.

---

.

Doc, the registry is where we probably part company on what i think will be about 80% or agreement on the issue.

I'd like to break the two where we disagree into two posts if I may. this is on the registry.

Right now the NICs system runs a check but does NOT record the purchase in any database. the sole concern is the government knowing who is armed, thus whose door to knock on first to collect the guns.

I support the checks, and could live with the universal ones, but I'm strongly against the federal government knowing who has what guns. It's a core 2nd amendment issue for me b/c the goal and protections of a well armed citizenry is undermined significantly by the government knowing who has what. I'm also against it on general privacy grounds.

the shining example of why it's bad is the Journal News actions. Connecticut has a licensing system, which meant there was a registry they could publish that put everyone in their area at risk including battered wives, the families of judges and police officers, etc.

Sure we can say "we'll pass a law to not allow it to be published" but like your great analogy of government being one way with spike strips, without a registry we're at least 2 steps from that sort of outcome. with it we're just 1 step away. I want to be as far away as possible.

since the background check will clear the person I see no reason why we need to know what they bought or if they bought it once they're OKed. If they do commit a crime etc. that prohibits them from owning a gun most every state has confiscation laws and they take all the guns.

if a gun is used in a crime and needs to be traced it's already easily done without the registry. what we do is keep all those transfer records so ATF can work backwards with a serial number, but they can't work forwards with an owner's name. so they can trace weapons as needed for law enforcement without us having a registry that could be exploited by the government or others, even hackers. Dealers have to keep those records forever.

there's just no benefit of it and there are severe risks to it. do the check, but then the state's role ends b/c we've found them to be law abiding, and at that point they should be afforded both the full right to gun ownership and the full rights of privacy.

Re the magazine capacity, I'm not saying all 14 rounds would be used in every home defense situation. I am saying the few studies on this issue say it's almost never the case that criminals use them, so we know the limit won't impact gun violence on the streets. we also know that on several levels it wont' help prevent mass shootings or the body counts in them (mostly b/c there are already millions of them available, also b/c of mag changes, bringing multiple guns, just too easy to circumvent any law).

but there are two places where it may be useful. one is just for fun, I just left that out to not be verbose. Fun counts for me, but not for many in this debate, so I skipped it but IMO fun is in the "pursuit of happiness" part and is a right, and after shooting a friend's uzi with 32 round mags a few weeks ago i can tell you it's a lot of fun. still I'm willing to set it aside just to narrow discussion.

the other is in defense situations. I agree in most situations the fight should be over one way or the other in 4-5 rounds but that's not a guarantee.

Generally an intruder/attacker will go the other way once you start shooting, but there are cases of people hopped on drugs not doing it. I can't say definitively someone would empty a 10 round mag and need more, but I also don't care to risk it given the lack of benefit of doing it.

as I get more into defensive shooting (going to go take my instructor test for NRA Basic Pistol) I realize just how difficult a home defense situation would be. After the very first shot from anyone you'll be blind from the flash if it's dark and deaf from the concussion in an enclosed space.

so there you are at 2am with someone coming through a door, you start shooting and immediately can barely see and can't hear a thing. I can see someone pulling the trigger more than we would otherwise assume, and if the attacker isn't smart enough to leave I can see it getting past 10 rounds.

I totally agree and concede it's not likely. strictly a rare situation.

From another perspective, most police carry 14 round guns, and in the 94 ban LEOs were an exception to the 10 round rule. I figure if the police think they need 14 to defend themselves it shouldn't be denied private citizens barring a really good reason, which we seem to agree doesn't exist.

I carry guns that are 5-6 rounds due to size, but in a full size defense weapon I will readily admit I feel better having 14 rounds versus 10. Maybe that's wrong, maybe the chances of needing them is very low, but I see no reason to give it up either and then it just becomes my right if it makes me feel better.

At the least I don't understand why they don't differentiate between rifle mags and pistol mags. the concern is these 30-40 round rifle mags, not the extra 4 in a 9mm pistol. why even include them? Just for ease politically and logistically make the cutoff 15 rounds and it eliminates the issue for most all handguns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

One other thought. This is the dumbest statement on Earth, uttered by Obama today and others in the past:

"If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," Obama said. "When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now. ... Let's do the right thing."

---

He is pro-choice, right? He supports a women's right to have an abortion, right? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

He is pro-choice, right? He supports a women's right to have an abortion, right? :confused:

---

He also voted against the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" three separate times when he was an Illinois State Senator. Apparently, he didn't see much wrong with killing a baby that had survived an abortion attempt.

The background checks don't bother me a bit, registry and licensing has always resulted in confiscation and bans.

If a medical professional asks about firearms I tell them it is none of their business, unless nit is my family doctor who discusses guns with me because it is a common interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The background checks don't bother me a bit, registry and licensing has always resulted in confiscation and bans.

If a medical professional asks about firearms I tell them it is none of their business, unless nit is my family doctor who discusses guns with me because it is a common interest.

---

this. "None of your GD business" is an acceptable answer, as is "I need to see a different doctor", so I'm OK with it. it's not a change in the laws, just informing people of them.

Re the background checks, currently there are rules against those with NICS access from using them except for guns they're selling. Procedurally it's tough to do a check for a person who just wants to make sure it's OK to sell it to some other guy.

This goes back to the premises restriction on dealers. Just let us do the background checks and move on. No need to limit dealers to a location and no need to limit us from doing them for people who want to be careful about their guns and to whom they sell them.

I'm dying to know what the ATF sends out per that order that we get info on how to handle doing them for 3rd parties. I'll post it when I get something.

Call me cynical, but I don't expect Obama's rhetoric today to match the actual EO's that he will issue. I expect the signed EO's to be far more overreaching and dictatorial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CattyWampus

Call me cynical, but I don't expect Obama's rhetoric today to match the actual EO's that he will issue. I expect the signed EO's to be far more overreaching and dictatorial.

---

won't call you cynical at all. I guarantee they're being watched very closely, but I will be curious as well how ATF et al "interpret" these orders.

still, could have been worse. he could have tried to put the multi-long gun reporting in place nationwide, etc. he clearly backed off using exec orders to go around Congress in a major, heads-on confrontational way.

I wonder if ATF agents will be keeping an eye on gun ranges to make sure no one has a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. I recently bought a Tisas 9mm Sport 17+1 (18 rounds) after a friend had me try his. I'm not sure what will be done about grandfathering in these types of pistols. It's designed for sport, but it's a damn fine home defense weapon.

The sheriff in our county is a person friend and he loves taking out their AR15 type gun and shooting, so does his daughter who is 15, just loves it.

I find it interesting that you never see law enforcement interviewed on the subject of gun control. I've never talked to a cop who didn't support gun ownership in a major way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CattyWampus

I wonder if ATF agents will be keeping an eye on gun ranges to make sure no one has a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. I recently bought a Tisas 9mm Sport 17+1 (18 rounds) after a friend had me try his. I'm not sure what will be done about grandfathering in these types of pistols. It's designed for sport, but it's a damn fine home defense weapon.

---

Magazine capacity restrictions will take an act of Congress, this is unlikely to happen.

Obama's executive orders may be HIPAA violations.

Obama has 144 executive orders through 47 months, not 923.
Teddy Roosevelt had over 1,000, not "3."
FDR had over 3,000, not 11.
Bush I had 166, not 3.
Bush II had 291, not 62.

The rest of the numbers are similarly way off.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Obama's EOs now number closer to 200, he has signed a lot since late December.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badrose

I find it interesting that you never see law enforcement interviewed on the subject of gun control. I've never talked to a cop who didn't support gun ownership in a major way.

---

I seriously doubt that you will find an experienced LEO that does not support gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Now, some of the younger guys, the ones we seem to have to the most problems with in regards to understanding what their job really is, lots of those guys will be the ones wanting to knock on your door and come into your house.......until something really bad happens to them, and then they'll get the true, total picture of the immense wrongness of their ways. If they're still lucky enough to be breathing air on this planet.
Many of us here in this agency have already had this conversation. If forced to do it, well, I don't think there'll be many "illegal" guns to be found.
I can tell you without hesitation that I "WILL NOT" participate in any such activity, and I "WILL NOT" assist, help, 'back-up' any state/federal agent requesting my assistance to do so either.
And no matter what my bosses say, they cannot "make me" break the law or disavow the Constitution, which I do not believe they would to begin with. But I am at a point in my career where I can just tell them "NO!" and they can't do too much to me. What're they going to do to me? Rotate me from the Courthouse back to the Jail? Put me back in Patrol? Send me to the "D" Bureau? Make me work Civil Process? Put me in Dispatch? Put a reprimand in my jacket? LOL! Already done ALL of that, doesn't scare me or bother me in the least bit.
But I WILL NOT break the law, and I WILL defend the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

Many of us here in this agency have already had this conversation. If forced to do it, well, I don't think there'll be many "illegal" guns to be found.
I can tell you without hesitation that I "WILL NOT" participate in any such activity, and I "WILL NOT" assist, help, 'back-up' any state/federal agent requesting my assistance to do so either.
And no matter what my bosses say, they cannot "make me" break the law or disavow the Constitution, which I do not believe they would to begin with. But I am at a point in my career where I can just tell them "NO!" and they can't do too much to me. What're they going to do to me? Rotate me from the Courthouse back to the Jail? Put me back in Patrol? Send me to the "D" Bureau? Make me work Civil Process? Put me in Dispatch? Put a reprimand in my jacket? LOL! Already done ALL of that, doesn't scare me or bother me in the least bit.
But I WILL NOT break the law, and I WILL defend the Constitution.

---

A lot of LEOs are going on record as saying much the same thing, guys in the military and reserves are also saying much the same thing off the record. Basically what would be left are the unarmed anti-gun liberals trying to disarm the rest of the country. I cannot imagine that going well at all.

On a larger scale a lot of state officials are also saying no gun confiscations will take place in their states, and some are even making it a felony to seize guns in their states.

That's the hard thing about America becoming an oppressive nation. You have to have people willing to do it. If those against it have guns you have to have a LOT of those people who are willing to face those other people. Makes it hard to do.

In fairness no one is proposing a mass confiscation, but Feinstein's bill does include confiscation upon death of assault weapons, so there is a small confiscation aspect.

The confiscation reality is that Feinstein and Bloomberg have been totally honest they'd seize guns if they could, but they can't possibly get those votes so it won't happen. I do think however it's really beneficial for the LEOs and everyone else to make it abundantly clear that even if they had votes they still wouldn't get their way.

where we may see some efforts is at the state level. Cuomo has pulled some seriously shady stuff to get their new gun laws in place this quick, and some other blue states will likely try. No red state is even close to trying. I think some rep in Georgia introduced something, won't even make it out of committee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Basically what would be left are the unarmed anti-gun liberals trying to disarm the rest of the country. I cannot imagine that going well at all.

---

would be fun to tune in to that alternate universe on TV though and watch them try. Can you imagine Feinstein in Prestonsburg or Hindman trying to do a voluntary turn in program? I'd drive up to watch that one in person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Cuomo has pulled some seriously shady stuff to get their new gun laws in place this quick, and some other blue states will likely try. No red state is even close to trying. I think some rep in Georgia introduced something, won't even make it out of committee.

---

The new laws in NY will be challenged by the NRA. One aspect not considered is the MacDonald and Heller cases held that handguns were popular and thus bans on them are not reasonable. The same argument can be made in regards to assault weapons. The AR15, its clones and similar rifles are one of the most popular weapons in the U.S., it was not manufactured for military use, but specifically designed for civilian use. If a SCOTUS ruling were consistent with those cases they would have to rule against assault weapons bans; especially given the small percentage used in crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The new laws in NY will be challenged by the NRA. One aspect not considered is the MacDonald and Heller cases held that handguns were popular and thus bans on them are not reasonable. The same argument can be made in regards to assault weapons. The AR15, its clones and similar rifles are one of the most popular weapons in the U.S., it was not manufactured for military use, but specifically designed for civilian use. If a SCOTUS ruling were consistent with those cases they would have to rule against assault weapons bans; especially given the small percentage used in crimes.

---

I'm hoping the thinking of the 7th Circuit takes hold, that to ban anything, guns or otherwise, you need a justification. In this case you need to show an improvement in public safety significant enough to justify restriction of the rights of the People. given how few people are killed by any long guns, much less "assault weapons", I don't see that dog hunting.

same for Feinstein's obsession over aesthetics. What's the justification to ban pistol grips or barrel shrouds?

You have to justify limiting the choices of Americans. You don't just get to do it b/c enough people think it's a good idea.