just when you think it cannot get any worse

Open Carry Bullet'n Board
21

Just look at states that have a ban on assault rifles . Not many people complied with them.

4 Likes
22

Yes,
When the California legislature passed its onerous laws against so called “assault rifles” a lot of folks who owned them merely moved them to storage across the state line.
No doubt lots of other in restricted states have done the same.
When they wanted to practice with them, they visited them one state over.
Not exactly convenient, but better than the alternative.
They still owned them and had access.
So much for the imagining of the politicians.

6 Likes
23

Im sick of all the games. I wish they would just go ahead and go for it so we can put a big FU stamp on the discussion.

3 Likes
24

Guns became part of the tax codes, because when the first efforts at federal gun control laws were made (1934 NFA), the Constitutional authority to tax interstate commerce was the only way they could find to legally justify passing those laws. This is also why the 1968 GCA requires a licensed dealer to be involved in sales that cross state lines, but ignores private sales that take place inside a state.

Pay attention to the definitions in that proposed legislation. It’s talking about semi-auto rifles ‘that are capable of accepting a detachable ammunition feeding device’. Why not say a rifle that uses a detachable magazine? Because their definition is much broader than that. A detachable ammunition feeding device is defined in such a way that it can include speed loaders, which means that various fixed magazine rifles will be covered by the legislation, if there is some way to load them without manually inserting the rounds (by hand) one at a time into the fixed magazine.

As for effectiveness of such laws, California has revised their ‘assault weapon ban’ a few times. They declared victory in removing these guns when their law was passed, and people just found ways to make the guns ‘California compliant’ by removing certain features or making the magazines meet the legal definition of non-detachable. They then revised their state ban, claiming that people had found “loopholes” in the original law. Feinstein’s latest attempts at passing a federal ‘assault weapon ban’ shows that they are still trying to close those ‘loopholes’, as her latest proposal bans some of the current ‘California compliant’ configurations.

There is also the concept of ‘the more tightly the government closes it’s fist, the more people will shift toward an attitude of defiance’. As already pointed out, some have dealt with state level bans by moving their banned guns to a secure location in another state. Looking at news reports from California, it is possible to point out that some simply ignore the law. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition in the first half of the 20th century. The US Constitution was amended to ban alcoholic beverages, in response to a movement that has some similarities to the current gun control movement. The result was a monumental failure of government, as people largely went along with violating the law, and organized crime in some areas saw an opportunity for profits.

Fighting against tax codes and government control of guns is a concept that the US was founded on. The American Revolutionary War began as a series of tax protests, then made the transition to an armed revolt when the government began attempting to take guns away from people (at Lexington and Concord). Some people learn from history, others are doomed to repeat it.

5 Likes
25

It’s getting close to time of using them, not hiding them.

5 Likes
26

I thought the IRS was a dept of the ATF?

3 Likes
27

Other way around, at least in the beginning.

Seems like Treasury and Justice departments treat ATF like a political game of ‘hot potato’, passing the bureau back and forth between them.

3 Likes