• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Gun Ban

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
37,762
Likes
28,333
Location
The foothills of Monadnock
America was like 90% fudds in 1994 though. Also that ban barely went in by the skin of it's teeth. If a mouse had farted in the wrong office in the Senate it would not have been passed.... today the calculus is much different obviously but who knows I think this thread is mostly mental masturbation unless somebody actually drafts a bill that has traction
Most of them don't.

I hope you're correct. If it were anyone other than Biden in the top slot I'd be more inclined to agree, but he has a proven track record of going after guns and minorities. And minors, of course.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,558
Likes
18,857
We might see a repeat of the 1986 Machine Gun Law.

Some folks will register their lowers with the NFA.

Others wont.

The ones that did will be able to legally sell their lowers for $10,000 each while the rest of the folks risk arrest and confiscation.
The difference is the 1986 ban was a cutoff in new registrations for an item already requiring NFA registration. There was a bump as people geared up to create as many new ones as they could, but nothing compared to what it would be registering tens of millions of existing, non-registered EBRs.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
1,732
Likes
1,199
Location
Down the rabbit hole, somewhere in Paradise.
This (and other ways, it could be a death by a thousand slices).

If people do not believe they will find a way around an AWB to effect the same results or worse, they are being completely naive. This is especially true if Dems end up with Senate.
The difference is the 1986 ban was a cutoff in new registrations for an item already requiring NFA registration. There was a bump as people geared up to create as many new ones as they could, but nothing compared to what it would be registering tens of millions of existing, non-registered EBRs.
My bet is many more auto sears were hastily manufactured and registered than complete weapons. ATF, in their twisted logic, consider the coin-sized sears to be the actual "machine guns"!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
1,356
Likes
1,701
Location
South Texas
All that is needed for them to do is repeal the law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Gun manufacturers are the only industry that have this protection. If successful, they will sue gun manufacturers until all are out of business.

They are not. Pharmaceuticals have a similar protection against being sued for damages caused by vaccines.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
The difference is the 1986 ban was a cutoff in new registrations for an item already requiring NFA registration. There was a bump as people geared up to create as many new ones as they could, but nothing compared to what it would be registering tens of millions of existing, non-registered EBRs.

First they would have to pass legislation changing NFA requirements

And along with that you can guarantee that Pro RKBA folks would also raise the spectre that AR lowers dont currently match definition of firearms as we've seen ATF/Feds drop cases in the last couple years when challenged in it

If they are going to attempt to open that pandora's box and a raft of others then its going to turn into a hot fooking media mess not to mention the massive cost associated with hiring people to deal with the "Registration" of firearms, magazines and the tax stamp process.......

As it stands the dems only have ~10 seat majority in the US House........and gun control is a guaranteed loser when it comes to elections......2022 is a mid term election and the party in control of the WH almost always loses seats.......

If they want to push gun control its going to cost the dems politically especially with all of the new dem gun owners out there
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
20,175
Likes
10,410
The difference is the 1986 ban was a cutoff in new registrations for an item already requiring NFA registration. There was a bump as people geared up to create as many new ones as they could, but nothing compared to what it would be registering tens of millions of existing, non-registered EBRs.
I wonder if a registered SBR would be exempt from future EBR registration?
 

hedgehound

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
813
Likes
1,082
First they would have to pass legislation changing NFA requirements

And along with that you can guarantee that Pro RKBA folks would also raise the spectre that AR lowers dont currently match definition of firearms as we've seen ATF/Feds drop cases in the last couple years when challenged in it

If they are going to attempt to open that pandora's box and a raft of others then its going to turn into a hot fooking media mess not to mention the massive cost associated with hiring people to deal with the "Registration" of firearms, magazines and the tax stamp process.......

As it stands the dems only have ~10 seat majority in the US House........and gun control is a guaranteed loser when it comes to elections......2022 is a mid term election and the party in control of the WH almost always loses seats.......

If they want to push gun control its going to cost the dems politically especially with all of the new dem gun owners out there

This describes the situation now. I am cautiously optimistic.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
18,053
Likes
14,120
Location
Southern NH
If a Republican President can, through executive fiat, order the ATF to ban bumpstocks, which they did without authority AND with the illogical rationale a non firearm, an accessory, was actually a machine gun, then why would you think a Democratic President couldn’t do the same to ban AR’s?

If your answer is that she has no authority to do so. That no reasonable person could ever possibly twist the NFA into somehow meaning an AR was actually a machine gun, (because clearly they aren’t), then you don’t have a good answer. Truth, facts, logic, and the law play an extremely small to non existence part in decisions made by people in power.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
16,735
Likes
14,877
Location
North Shore
First they would have to pass legislation changing NFA requirements

And along with that you can guarantee that Pro RKBA folks would also raise the spectre that AR lowers dont currently match definition of firearms as we've seen ATF/Feds drop cases in the last couple years when challenged in it

If they are going to attempt to open that pandora's box and a raft of others then its going to turn into a hot fooking media mess not to mention the massive cost associated with hiring people to deal with the "Registration" of firearms, magazines and the tax stamp process.......

As it stands the dems only have ~10 seat majority in the US House........and gun control is a guaranteed loser when it comes to elections......2022 is a mid term election and the party in control of the WH almost always loses seats.......

If they want to push gun control its going to cost the dems politically especially with all of the new dem gun owners out there

Normally i would agree with all that , but if Trump actually loses this , you won't see a fair election in the country again.
You don't have to worry about losing a seat when you can cheat you way to victory.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
Normally i would agree with all that , but if Trump actually loses this , you won't see a fair election in the country again.
You don't have to worry about losing a seat when you can cheat you way to victory.

We havent seen a fair election in 20 years......dems have been putting their hands, feet and anything else they can find on the scales for my entire lifetime and before.....Daley got JFK elected via voter fruad

Republicans at the fed level have had to overcome dem fraud for decades to get elected
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
20,175
Likes
10,410
Some people out there own hundreds of lowers.

I presume they can be kept but once made into a rifle - then you can SBR them.

I wonder if Biden will demand that ALL lowers must be registered.

That would bankrupt many people.

The government can't demand a buy back for something the government never gave us in the first place.

Lots of people will be upset and that is when a insurgency starts.

Didn't go well for the US in the Middle East.
 

alan226

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Messages
1,335
Likes
1,557
Location
Mass Northshore
just like start of the Obama reign, promise the Moon, then during the 8 years deliver moon pie candy, but be the best gun salesperson ever.




there is only one mention of the Constitution:



basically whatever the f*** he does is constitutional because Joe knows it, he sniffed it.
Makes me want to buy a gun.

If there was any to buy.....
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
77,372
Likes
53,580
First they would have to pass legislation changing NFA requirements

And along with that you can guarantee that Pro RKBA folks would also raise the spectre that AR lowers dont currently match definition of firearms as we've seen ATF/Feds drop cases in the last couple years when challenged in it

If they are going to attempt to open that pandora's box and a raft of others then its going to turn into a hot fooking media mess not to mention the massive cost associated with hiring people to deal with the "Registration" of firearms, magazines and the tax stamp process.......

As it stands the dems only have ~10 seat majority in the US House........and gun control is a guaranteed loser when it comes to elections......2022 is a mid term election and the party in control of the WH almost always loses seats.......

If they want to push gun control its going to cost the dems politically especially with all of the new dem gun owners out there
This bullshit tinfoiler phantasm of ARs becoming NFA devices is full retard ... of course the NRA will use it to Gin up a funding drive so we can pay for more of shit head WLP's wardrobe or whatever..... [rofl]

Anyone who thinks it's going to get to that point without serious political and voter resistance is smoking some serious crack...
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
18,053
Likes
14,120
Location
Southern NH
This bullshit tinfoiler phantasm of ARs becoming NFA devices is full retard ... of course the NRA will use it to Gin up a funding drive so we can pay for more of shit head WLP's wardrobe or whatever..... [rofl]

Anyone who thinks it's going to get to that point without serious political and voter resistance is smoking some serious crack...

I know 1994 was over 25 years ago, but it really isn't that long. Not to mention 2004. What makes you possibly think this is out of the realm of possibility? Have you not seen what's been happening in general in the US this year?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
1,387
Likes
1,899

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
I think the order of effort will be as below.. For those of you in MA keep in mind outside of the Iron Curtain gun ownership is radically different, there are a lot of things they want to do that already exist in a communist state but not federally.

1. Universal background checks, this probably flies unfortunately because I just don't see all Republicans resisting it.

2. A standard AWB with grandfathering, possibly mags in there. This highly controversial and massive bill will waste about a year and likely is too controversial to get through even a 50/50 senate - some democrat may defect for fear of re-election. Republicans tend to draw a line here, it is too inflammatory of a position today. If it passed our SCOTUS likely then tosses it and The End.

3. Ghost guns and online parts. I bet this boils down to a compromise of background checks required for make your own reciever kits. I think it could pass unfortunately.

4. A voluntary buyback program, probably wastes about a year as democrats attempt to pass one just to say they did.

5. Somewhere after all that garbage maybe they take a shot at NFA for semi autos and it simply has no hope of success. On paper the gun fearing public won't really understand it even, ie it doesn't take guns away is just a "tax". It is a lot of effort for something that won't generate votes.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,191
Likes
3,155
Location
WNW of MHT
Some people out there own hundreds of lowers.
. . .
I wonder if Biden will demand that ALL lowers must be registered.
That would bankrupt many people.
The initial NFA 1934 and the various expansions of the NFA each came with tax-free registration, or even an amnesty period.

Even when the "Street Sweeper" was reclassified as a DD, existing owners were allowed to register it under the NFA without paying the $200.


I think the order of effort will be as below.. ...

  1. Universal background checks, this probably flies unfortunately because I just don't see all Republicans resisting it.
  2. A standard AWB with grandfathering, possibly mags in there. This highly controversial and massive bill will waste about a year and likely is too controversial to get through even a 50/50 senate - some democrat may defect for fear of re-election. Republicans tend to draw a line here, it is too inflammatory of a position today. If it passed our SCOTUS likely then tosses it and The End.
  3. Ghost guns and online parts. I bet this boils down to a compromise of background checks required for make your own reciever kits. I think it could pass unfortunately.
  4. A voluntary buyback program, probably wastes about a year as democrats attempt to pass one just to say they did.
I agree on most points -- I can see enough (R) opposition to either hold off or water down UBC, and the "buyback" gets funded with a few hundred million and wastes most of it in giveaway grants to the Brady Bunch and Demanding Moms.
 

allen-1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
10,720
Likes
23,858
Location
GA; (CT escapee)

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
I know 1994 was over 25 years ago, but it really isn't that long. Not to mention 2004. What makes you possibly think this is out of the realm of possibility? Have you not seen what's been happening in general in the US this year?

the 94 ban wasnt really a ban........sales of AR's went on unabated across the majority of the nation.....albeit with "heavy barrels" and similarly silly "feature" alterations

Not to mention that it had a sunset clause in it
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
77,372
Likes
53,580
I know 1994 was over 25 years ago, but it really isn't that long. Not to mention 2004. What makes you possibly think this is out of the realm of possibility? Have you not seen what's been happening in general in the US this year?
The original fed AWB was pretty small in scope. There literally was almost no ground enforcement of the AWB at the gun owner level unless the states took it upon themselves to do so. Manufacturers were still smuggling in/rugsweeping mags and passing them off as preban, etc. It didn't cost the feds shit to implement the 94 awb either. Not to mention it barely passed, by the skin of its teeth. They had to put a sunset clause in it for it to even pass.

2004? The attempts to renew tbe AWB died a quick, horrible death, most pols, even democrats, were reluctant to sponsor a renewal bill. It's basically political herpes. Nobody wanted to get the herp.

The idea of mandating registration (and tax collection) for like 30 million guns or whatever it is probably much higher number by now, is retarded. You would have to give the ATF a billion dollar budget for it. Good luck getting that money.

Not to mention the gun mafia will not allow it. A full on ban is a threat to their sales.

I mean I get where you're coming from we have radical leftists burning and destroying shit and rigging elections sure, but some point the rubber meets the road when it comes to lawmakers in the political reality of actually passing legislation. If things deteriorate further I could see this kind of garbage being more plausible 4-8 + years down the road.... but now? If you REALLY want to worry, think about shit like national ERPO (state ERPOS don't follow people or make them fed PPs) and UBC. Things they can get fudds and some dumber Americans to suck for because it's easier to hide the evil in those things. The ERPO shit is particularly bad because they already have court decisions that reinforce Lautenburg, and ERPO would just be an expansion of that.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,191
Likes
3,155
Location
WNW of MHT
Not to mention the gun mafia will not allow it. A full on ban is a threat to their sales.
This is something which I never got about how the antis always insist the NRA is the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers...

Wouldn't a full-on ban by name and feature incorporating a "buy back out" of guns already owned mean increased sales of net new firearms?
 

teamRR

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,790
Likes
1,402
No. The idea of a mandatory govt buy is to combine it with a ban on new sales and get these out of the hands of unimportant people.

Agree with all that but another potential pie in the sky plan B, especially if SCOTUS makes a ban unconstitutional, would be skip the ban but move to NFA everything. Then like pre 86 for machine guns, nothing is banned rather is all severely infringed.

Odds of the whole semi auto NFA thing today I think are really low but such might stand greater odds of being constitutional.
 
Top Bottom