PDA

View Full Version : Worst case scenario Post 2008


Steyr_223
09-23-2007, 12:48 PM
Worst-case scenario Post 2008

Before UFC 76 last night, a group of us discussed the possible future of our other passion, firearms. We drank some Fat Tire ale and snacked on Thai food; Pad Thai, spring rolls, Mussaman Beef Curry, Mushroom fried rice and Siamese Veggies.

We were all friends and co-workers, all of them I have converted to our cause or were already pro-gun. Present were new converts, Ram is from India and Simon from the UK. Both are new to guns and find the freedom of ownership wonderful. Many are now OLL owners.

We all had fears of losing more of our 2nd Amendment rights after the 2008 elections. Our tops fears:

1) HR 1022
2) Future ban on AW type receivers; AK, AR, FAL and others (Fed level)
3) Military type ammo bans (Fed and State)
4) Heavy taxes on future ammo and firearms
5) Micro stamping laws on ammo
6) Environmental type bans on ammo and target ranges.

What are the chances of any of these coming to fruition after 2008?

UFC 76 was pretty exciting, some great action..Great time was had by all..

VegasND
09-23-2007, 1:21 PM
Good topic to explore. If we can define the worst possible, then zeroing in on where best to focus resources is easier.

Don't forget to do the easy things. State your beliefs and contact those currently in power as well as those who seek it.

hoffmang
09-23-2007, 2:07 PM
Much of the future depends on the outcome in Parker/Heller.

If we lose Parker/Heller before the elections, then I actually expect you'll see more pro-gun senators and congressmen and probably more support for a pro-gun president in the White House. With that backlash around, I think we'll all be able to push for more federal protections of gun rights.

If we win Parker/Heller then I think the final politics of November '08 are more up in the air as gun voters at the margin will be freeer to vote for less pro-gun candidates. However, the democrats still need the Blue Dog senators to keep a majority there and they are decidedly pro-gun. I expect at the federal level we'll be able to roll back some federal laws.

At the state level, the best thing that can happen to us is a successful outcome of the redistricting trade for lessening term limits. Gerrymandering is making it hard for us to really exert political pressure (its even hard to try to help a moderate Dem defeat an existing heavily anti Dem). Also, term limits are hurting the CA gun rights movement because we have to train a new batch of legislators how painful it is to be anti-gun.

That said, much of the state will now depend on what is in the Parker/Heller decision. If 14th amendment incorporation is as easy as it might be, we may start really rolling restrictions back in the courts here in California.

BTW: If the lawyer behind Parker/Heller succeeds in this case in Texas, the "safe handgun" list will become only a minor annoyance: http://www.saf.org/texas.expat.lawsuit/texas.expat.complaint.pdf . If federal law no longer requires one to be a resident to purchase a firearm, then all we'd have to do is buy our non "safe" handguns when traveling in another state.

Now all that said - the Brady/LCAV camp have decided that in the current climate of strengthening gun rights, they'd better focus on ammo. As such, those issues - especially combined with supposed environmental arguments - will be their stalking horses. I expect that to be confined to the States however. Also note that Federal law can use its commerce clause powers to protect us from that stuff.

-Gene

gazzavc
09-23-2007, 3:33 PM
Worst-case scenario Post 2008

Before UFC 76 last night, a group of us discussed the possible future of our other passion, firearms. We drank some Fat Tire ale and snacked on Thai food; Pad Thai, spring rolls, Mussaman Beef Curry, Mushroom fried rice and Siamese Veggies.



After eating that lot im sure the SHTF.

Hope you had a bog roll in the fridge !!!:eek:

Scarecrow Repair
09-23-2007, 5:01 PM
BTW: If the lawyer behind Parker/Heller succeeds in this case in Texas, the "safe handgun" list will become only a minor annoyance: http://www.saf.org/texas.expat.lawsuit/texas.expat.complaint.pdf . If federal law no longer requires one to be a resident to purchase a firearm, then all we'd have to do is buy our non "safe" handguns when traveling in another state.

I just read the complaint, and have probably missed something in the legal side effects department.

The complaint is about a non-resident US citizen not having a state of residence and thus being unable to fill out the 4473, plus a law which seems to forbid him from acquiring firearms but is a bit vague on possession of firearms (presumably acquired when he was a resident of some state). The prayer for relief asks to stop enforcing those laws. My narrow reading would only apply to citizens without a state of residence, so that if the 4473 were changed to allow "none" as an answer, it doesn't necessarily mean that those of with a state of residence such as CA could decline to list that if we went to another state such as NV.

But you imply that overturning those state of residence laws would mean any citizen could buy guns in any state. Is that just because we wouldn't have to list the state on the 4473, or is it because Federal laws restricting sales to residents of the same state as the FFL would be overturned? What if we still have to show ID and the FFL still won't sell to CA residents because the gun itself would not be legal in CA -- would showing a passport work, since even if it shows a state in the address, it doesn't necessarily mean we are a resident of that state any more?

Supposing this does throw out the state part of the 4473 process and we could then buy guns in NV that are banned in CA -- there are several kinds of these CA restrictions. AW bans, unsafe handguns, and there are probably other CA-specific naughty guns. What would happen to these? Would we be require to fill out some form in CA, like AW registration, or the normal form one fills out when moving into CA with firearms?

You ought to start a new thread on this ... it's the kind of backdoor legal sabotage which makes life so interesting in CA!

Satex
09-23-2007, 5:28 PM
It is way to difficult to predict where the winds will blow. Even though many folks are strong 2A advocates, I don't think this election will have any, or much 2A focus. The reps and the dems have much to beat each other with like: the war, social security, healthcare, and more. As we get closer to the elections, I am sure the traditional party lines will also come to life: abortion, environment, taxes...

The only way to protect 2A is legal and civil activism, the kind that will help shape public opinion for the cause. When public opinion demands - politicians listen. So it sounds like you are on the right track, get friends involved - the more, the merrier!

hoffmang
09-23-2007, 5:56 PM
Scarecrow,

A ruling for the non-resident American citizen will likely make it easy to then follow up with a complaint that limiting the right to purchase a firearm to only in state residents has no rational basis and is thus a violation of the 2A in Texas. There are arguments against that, but I think - especially in Texas/5th Circuit - that you can overcome those arguments.

-Gene

bulgron
09-23-2007, 9:02 PM
Scarecrow,

A ruling for the non-resident American citizen will likely make it easy to then follow up with a complaint that limiting the right to purchase a firearm to only in state residents has no rational basis and is thus a violation of the 2A in Texas. There are arguments against that, but I think - especially in Texas/5th Circuit - that you can overcome those arguments.

-Gene

Yes, but that doesn't do us any good in the 9th circuit, does it? Unless someone is prepared to run this case all the way to SCOTUS from the 9th circuit, that is.

hoffmang
09-23-2007, 9:46 PM
Yes, but that doesn't do us any good in the 9th circuit, does it? Unless someone is prepared to run this case all the way to SCOTUS from the 9th circuit, that is.

Uhh... The whole point is that I want to buy handguns in other states - not California. If the Fifth Circuit rules that requiring sales to only residents of the same state as the FFL, then all FFL's in the Fifth Circuit could sell to anyone who shows up on their doorstep. Field trip to Texas for a Metaba....

Also, when there is a sister circuit ruling and no on point circuit ruling, it gets a bit of deference. As such we might be able to bring that case in Nevada as well after a successful win in Texas.

-Gene

bulgron
09-23-2007, 9:51 PM
Uhh... The whole point is that I want to buy handguns in other states - not California. If the Fifth Circuit rules that requiring sales to only residents of the same state as the FFL, then all FFL's in the Fifth Circuit could sell to anyone who shows up on their doorstep. Field trip to Texas for a Metaba....

Also, when there is a sister circuit ruling and no on point circuit ruling, it gets a bit of deference. As such we might be able to bring that case in Nevada as well after a successful win in Texas.

-Gene

I must be missing something here.

If there isn't one already on the books, what's to stop California from passing a law stating that California state residents must purchase firearms in California?

I mean, I already have to register any firearm that I bring into the state, don't I? And doesn't that registration mean that the firearm must be on the state of California approved list? I can't, for example, go do a Person to Person transfer in Arizona and then bring my new AR-15 into this state, right?

I just don't see how relaxing these rules for the 5th circuit helps me here in California.

Scarecrow Repair
09-23-2007, 9:56 PM
Uhh... The whole point is that I want to buy handguns in other states - not California. If the Fifth Circuit rules that requiring sales to only residents of the same state as the FFL, then all FFL's in the Fifth Circuit could sell to anyone who shows up on their doorstep. Field trip to Texas for a Metaba....

So what would happen when we came back with these arms that CA doesn't like? Would we even have to report them?

hoffmang
09-23-2007, 9:58 PM
It's not illegal under California law to import handguns personally. It's just Federal law that keeps you from actually doing it in practice. If you have an 03 FFL, you can import unsafe handguns but CA does require you to send in a form to register them. People moving in often bring in handguns not on the safe list.

If the federal law limiting FFL's from selling handguns to out of state residents were found unconstitutional in Texas, then you can hop on Southwest with an empty FAA approved handgun case and fly home with whatever handguns are otherwise perfectly legal.

Whether you had to report them would be unclear. Right now its not contemplated in California law because it is generally not doable. The closest you get is if you have dual federal residency and bring a handgun back to CA from your other home.

-Gene

bwiese
09-23-2007, 10:10 PM
I
If there isn't one already on the books, what's to stop California from passing a law stating that California state residents must purchase firearms in California?


There already is, de facto due to the interface btwn CA and Fed law.

This creates the troublesome situation disallowing a KS dealer from selling a lawful firearm to a CA resident - with background check, etc. - even if the resident is going to retain the firearm in KS. CA shouldn't really be able to control its citizens outside its borders as long as it doesn't affect CA itself. This is roughly akin to saying Californians under 21 can't drink liquor even when outside CA in state that allows liquor sales to those over 18 - which wouldn't fly.

The case Gene brought up is a good one because due to 'stateless' state of individual, he cannot avail himself of his lawful RKBA/2nd rights.

This may have interesting side effects, too, on CA's DROS requirements - utility bills, etc.: "We make you buy power from PG&E and have a car registration and rent a place from a landlord" in order to get a gun. Right now a homeless person cannot legally purchase a firearm even if he has a legit place to store/shoot it. Similarly, what about someone getting free residency and having no power bills or vehicle? Should he be disenfranchised of 2nd/RKBA rights too?