The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: PegLeg45 on January 02, 2013, 02:59:43 PM
-
Hey, focus on my right hand....and my right hand only.....absolutely nothing to see in my left hand.....focus on the right....
The absurdity of the levels of restriction sought by Feinstein may stall at the tip-off of the game......but still serve the anti's end-game, which is a foot in the door for more erosion of our rights down the line.
Feinstein's 'assault weapon' ban probably not gun grabbers' main effort
Last week, we discussed Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) proposed ban of so-called "assault weapons," and the fact that this ban if passed would call for wholesale confiscation of legally bought (and heretofore legally owned) firearms. Since then, Feinstein has released more details of her gun ban fantasy, and if anything, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner's assessment of what the ban would entail was optimistic, with some credible observers making a plausible case for the claim that it could be interpreted as a ban of most semi-automatic handguns.
Perhaps counterintuitively, the extremely draconian nature of the proposed legislation is probably good news for gun rights and liberty advocates, because it is so extreme that even the most cynical exploitation of the murdered children of Sandy Hook Elementary School is quite unlikely to be enough to force such a ban through Congress.
Whatever else one says about Feinstein, it seems unlikely that she is sufficiently clueless to be unaware of this. The more plausible theory is that this overreach is calculated to draw the bulk of gun rights advocates' fire (metaphorically speaking), while less extreme infringements on that which shall not be infringed receive less attention.
More insidiously, it might even be intended to provide cover for GOP members of congress, who would vote against it, tell gun rights advocates that they had met their obligations to us, and then in the spirit of "compromise," vote for one or more of the lesser (but still utterly unacceptable) infringements. There are some indications that the process has already begun, and as Mike Vanderboegh observes, GOP "leadership" has done nothing to inspire confidence that such abject treachery is beneath them.
Perhaps the most likely of the "lesser infringements" is a ban of private firearms sales, as we discussed last month. That abomination has been supported by numerous Republicans--including some who afterward received glowing endorsements from the NRA. In fact, the Firearms Coalition pointed out in comments that the NRA itself not long ago supported mandatory background checks at gun shows, "so long as there was an assurance that they wouldn't unduly 'inconvenience' gun buyers."
Another distinct possibility is a standalone ban of eleven round or larger (the gun prohibitionists' definition of "high capacity") magazines. Several GOP politicians and ostensibly "conservative" media talking heads have indicated a willingness to discuss such a ban.
Feinstein's attempt to ban so-called "assault weapons" seems highly unlikely to pass, but that does not mean that the bill will fail to advance the forcible citizen disarmament lobby's agenda. If we the people allow our public servants to hide behind any ambiguity over our demand that shall not be infringed be treated as meaning what it says, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
http://www.examiner.com/node/57171161
-
Yes she is that clueless, but it doesn't matter if you intend to ignore any further laws this illegal regime may enact.
-
I told you, "THEY" are staking a really high mark in the sand. Then they expect us in the name of compromise to come part way.
On a side note, if all TRANSFERS have to go through FFL, then you can kiss rental guns goodby. Remember it's the "transfer" that's actually regulated. You also, under All-Transfers-Must-Go-Through-FFL you could be charged with a felony for letting someone else shoot your gun at the range.
-
I told you, "THEY" are staking a really high mark in the sand. Then they expect us in the name of compromise to come part way.
On a side note, if all TRANSFERS have to go through FFL, then you can kiss rental guns goodby. Remember it's the "transfer" that's actually regulated. You also, under All-Transfers-Must-Go-Through-FFL you could be charged with a felony for letting someone else shoot your gun at the range.
Seems that would ultimately depend on the argument of the definition (or the intent implied) of the term "transfer" and how applied.
Loaning a gun at the range for temporary use should not (even by extreme measures) be considered the same as a transfer of ownership.......but, of course, never underestimate the depths the anti's will stoop to prove a point.
-
It's transfer of POSSESSION .
If they can they will regulate it .
If you allow it.
-
It's transfer of POSSESSION .
If they can they will regulate it .
If you allow it.
Not disagreeing that if they could they would.
But there IS a monumental difference in meanings for "possession: as in holding it in your hands" and "possession: as in a personal possession that one owns".........
But I expect it would be trudged through the courts at all levels as it is an arguable point.
The legal meanings of transfer, possession, and ownership would all have to be explicitly defined.
I have no doubts that .gov can absolutely pervert the "standard" common sense meanings of things. I would sincerely hope that there is just enough brain matter left in the Legislature, on some level, to prevent such absurdity.
-
No there isn't, at least not legally.
The "war on drugs" took care of that.
If it's in your hands it's yours.
Otherwise they could not have arrested a large number of mules for smuggling drugs some one else packed.
-
No there isn't, at least not legally.
The "war on drugs" took care of that.
If it's in your hands it's yours.
Otherwise they could not have arrested a large number of mules for smuggling drugs some one else packed.
The drug example is true, if we were talking about the transport, and possession during, of guns.
But we're talking about simply holding one at a range or gun store, as in Alf's post.
Are you saying that if I walk into Wal-mart to shop, and stop and pick up a hammer off a rack, at that point is "becomes" mine?
Same with handling guns at the counter of a gun store..... Just because I'm holding it (literally possessing, true) does it magically become mine before money changes hand?
I know we're splittin' hairs here, by debating what-if's and what-might's .........
Like I said, I'm not in disagreement that it COULD happen.... just saying that RIGHT now there is a line marking a difference (because obviously you are not breaking the law by holding or shooting someone else's gun at the range).... but it would take a lot of absurd smudging of the line to get to the point we are talking about and that I hope cooler heads prevail (if there are any left).
-
I know we're splittin' hairs here, by debating what-if's and what-might's .........
Like I said, I'm not in disagreement that it COULD happen.... just saying that RIGHT now there is a line marking a difference (because obviously you are not breaking the law by holding or shooting someone else's gun at the range).... but it would take a lot of absurd smudging of the line to get to the point we are talking about and that I hope cooler heads prevail (if there are any left).
The problem is there is no hair to split and the line in the sand is that private "transfers" do not require FFL. So if I loan you my gun at the range, it doesn't matter how the words "transfer" and "possession" are defined, they are not applicable. BUT if ALL transfers, private, estate or otherwise are required to go through an FFL, then those words will need to be defined. I've looked in the '68 GCA and they are not in the definitions section.
True I'm rattling the cage and presenting a worst case, but then that's who Sen Feintein is ... worst case.