PDA

View Full Version : A Great Article for States Protecting Themselves against BHO and gang


1stLineGear
02-01-2009, 8:01 PM
This article is taken from todays www.survivalblog.com Check out the links at the end and see what New Hampshire and Montana are doing to exempt themselves from following any illegal firearms bans. The folloing is the article.

Inauguration Fallout: Will Retreat Locale Priorities be Skewed?

The recent inauguration of BHO and the establishment of a quasi-socialist majority in congress will have some far-reaching implications. Today, I 'm just going to focus on one of them, because it is of concern to many preparedness-minded individuals: The possibility of Federal gun laws becoming just as bad or perhaps worse than those extant in the most gun-grabbing states.

For many years I have advised my consulting clients and SurvivalBlog readers to "vote with their feet", if they live in states with restrictive gun laws. Unlike the UK, that has a uniform set of national laws, the US has always been characterized by it patchwork of state laws, which vary widely. Here in the US, if someone dislikes paying sales tax, they can simply move to a state like Alaska, Delaware, Montana, or Oregon, that have no sales tax; or someone that doesn't like income tax can move to Florida, Nevada, Texas, South Dakota, Washington, or Wyoming. Likewise, someone that feels oppressed by the gun laws of New Jersey or California could move to a mecca of firearms freedom like Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, or Wyoming . These various taxes and restrictive laws weighed heavily when I developed my ranking of 19 western states for their potential for relocation for those that want to be prepared for long term societal disruption. The recent paradigm shift in Washington, however, may change that. It now appears that Federal gun laws may become more draconian than the worst of the existing state laws. This will make those state laws essentially a moot point. So how will this affect my rankings? Depending on how things play out, this could push up the rankings of Arkansas, California, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. I'd appreciate your comments on this issue.

Moving Offshore?
I plan to stick it out here in the States, but for the sake of showing other points of view, I'd also appreciate hearing from any American readers that have gone the ex-pat route. Please let us know you reasoning in deciding to move offshore, and a description of where you settled. Do you feel more of less free there? How are the gun laws in your new country? Are they more or less restrictive that in the US? Is registration required? Are the gun laws openly flaunted?

New Impetus to Buy Pre-1899 Guns

The other major fallout of the new Washington paradigm for gun owners is the prospect of almost universal nationwide registration of firearms. Knowing that registration is often a precursor to confiscation (as in Australia, Canada, and the UK, for example), this could be a proverbial Very Bad Thing (VBT). I predict that if nationwide gun registration is established, many Americans will refuse to comply with what they see as unconstitutional law. Then, much like in Finland and Germany, Greece, Italy, and Spain, rather than register their guns, owners will simply hide huge numbers of them in elaborate wall or attic caches, hidden rooms, and underground caches. (Not surprisingly, some of the highest rates of unregistered gun ownership are in countries that were occupied by Germany during World War II, wand where there has been a fear of occupation by other invading armies. (With the reasoning being "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.")

Massive noncompliance with gun registration will lead to a predicament: If most guns get buried somewhere, then what will people use on a regular day-to-day basis for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense? Certainly, some wealthy owners might embark upon buying a "second set" of registered guns. But this is prohibitively expensive for most of us.

I predict that many shooters will begin "collecting" Federally-exempt cartridge guns that were made in or before 1898. These guns have always been outside of Federal jurisdiction, and the December 31, 1898 cut-off date has been set in stone since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Thankfully, Federal legislators consider pre-1899 guns a thoroughly obsolete non-issue, and they will likely be exempted in any nationwide gun registration scheme. I predict that the prices of pre-1899 cartridge guns will increase substantially in the next few years, regardless of changes in Federal gun laws. But if there is indeed a nationwide registration law and pre-1899 guns are not included, their prices will likely quadruple or quintuple, practically overnight. Keep in mind that there is a very small, finite supply of these guns! Presently, you can buy a Mauser rifle made in 1898 for just 20% to 30% more than one made in 1899. But in just a few years, there might be a 5X difference! Plan accordingly. For details on pre-1899 guns and how to identify them, see The Pre-1899 Antique Guns FAQ, that I authored.

County and City Divergence

In addition to the sharp differences at the state level, there is also the issue of divergent county and city ordinances. For example, the state of Nevada as a whole has fairly non-intrusive gun laws, but just Clark County (home to the sprawling Las Vegas metroplex) has some absurd gun laws on the books. Residents of states without firearms law preemption laws share this predicament. I find some of the local restrictions on full-capacity magazines particularly onerous, and hard to keep track of. Here are some examples:

No magazines with a capacity over 12 rounds are allowed in Chicago, Illinois
No magazines with a capacity over 15 rounds are allowed in the state of New Jersey, South Bend, Indiana, or Aurora; Illinois.
No magazines with a capacity over 20 rounds are allowed in the state of Maryland (without a special permit), Wichita, Kansas, or the City & County of Denver Colorado

There are also some idiotic restrictions on sales of firearms ammunition at the local level. For example, it is illegal to sell ammunition by mail order (using common carriers such as UPS) to private parties in:

The city of Sacramento, California

Marin, Napa, Ventura, and Yolo counties in California

Cook County, Illinois;

Alaska

Hawaii

The Chicago metropolitan area,

New York City

New Jersey

Massachusetts

The District of Columbia

Puerto Rico

APO or FPO (US m overseas) addresses

But state, county and city laws also provide a few interesting loopholes. One well-known loophole was mentioned to me by reader F.G., who forwarded this article link: Old firearms given new life by restrictive New York gun control laws. I'd be interested in hearing about others.

The flip-side to all this is state reservation of rights, wherein states effectively thumb their noses at over-reaching Federal jurisdiction. A recently-introduced bill in New Hampshire is a good example. www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html (A hat tip to SurvivalBlog reader Larry T. for that link.) Another example is HB 246, Montana's proposed "made in Montana" http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/20986.html Federal firearms jurisdiction exemption bill. I predict that if new Federal gun laws are enacted, many more states will do their best to exempt themselves, citing the 10th Amendment and the Lopez decision. Some might even go so far as to start rumbling about secession from the Union.

dfletcher
02-01-2009, 8:32 PM
It's illegal to sell mail order ammo in Alaska? If that's accurate there has to be some reason not associated with the typical gun control types.

yellowfin
02-01-2009, 11:44 PM
Interesting that the author of the article failed to mention that voting with the feet is how the stupid laws stay in place.

KWA-S
02-02-2009, 1:45 AM
Interesting that the author of the article failed to mention that voting with the feet is how the stupid laws stay in place.

And how that makes it worse for those of us that can't move for work or family reasons.

aileron
02-02-2009, 5:12 AM
Because running from and not confronting our problems is how we solve them.

berto
02-02-2009, 8:42 AM
Vote with our feet? Seriously? Concentrating the tax-hating and gun-loving in a handful of states leaves the rest of the states to the opposition and gives the them complete control of the federal government. That's a recipe for disaster. I'll stick it out in CA and fight instead of cutting and running.

John Browning
02-02-2009, 4:37 PM
Vote with our feet? Seriously? Concentrating the tax-hating and gun-loving in a handful of states leaves the rest of the states to the opposition and gives the them complete control of the federal government. That's a recipe for disaster. I'll stick it out in CA and fight instead of cutting and running.

However, that would also provide enough support for freedom in that the people of those states would probably be willing to do ANYTHING to live as free as they choose. I doubt the feds would be willing to risk an open civil war with a state that could not stomach it's socialist/facist/communist/etc policies. I'd hope that an unconstitutional threat to peoples freedom would be met with any and all reasonable measures of resistance, and think that states with high populations of like minded people would be willing to ensure freedom still rings.

FortCourageArmory
02-02-2009, 4:48 PM
There are also some idiotic restrictions on sales of firearms ammunition at the local level. For example, it is illegal to sell ammunition by mail order (using common carriers such as UPS) to private parties in:

Marin, Napa, Ventura, and Yolo counties in California
MAJOR FUD!!!! There are no local or county-wide ordinances in Ventura County that prevents mail-order ammunition sales. This is the same crap Sportsman's Guide does and it just isn't true.

Sam
02-02-2009, 8:10 PM
MAJOR FUD!!!! There are no local or county-wide ordinances in Ventura County that prevents mail-order ammunition sales. This is the same crap Sportsman's Guide does and it just isn't true.

I was thinking the same thing about Yolo...

BigDogatPlay
02-02-2009, 9:34 PM
Alaska and Hawaii would require air shipment and ammo, primers and powder are all "dangerous goods" requiring special handling. It's probably easier and less expensive for some to simply not ship to those states.