Friday, January 30, 2009

An Excellent Article on Obama & Gun Rights...

...from Reason Online that I profoundly hope is correct, the gist of the article being that Obama is unlikely to move against us for fear of the long-term consequences for the Dems:
But as far as actual action to restrict gun rights on the federal level, not much is imminent or moving. Congress and the new president are very, very busy spending the U.S. further into hyperinflation or bankruptcy and figuring out exit strategies (or not) from Bush-era foreign policy entanglements. While Justice Department's focus on enforcing existing gun laws may well increase, we're unlikely to see any significant new federal efforts that infringe on the Heller-certified constitutional right to own common weapons for self-defense in the home.

The gun rights community, in other words, is most likely wrong about the extent to which the Obama administration will try to restrict gun rights. (Not that, even in a post-Heller age, they don’t have reason to be worried; short of D.C.-style total gun bans, lower courts so far seem sure that any other gun regulations go under the ruling.) The political irony is that being mistaken about the magnitude of the threat can guarantee they achieve their goals—being wrong, especially convincing the gun rights rank and file to grossly overestimate the Obama threat, will help ensure that the threat never becomes real—even if it never would have.

In the face of an administration that undoubtedly only respects gun rights to the extent that its supporters have the political power to harm it, gun rights forces do need to keep their powder dry; perhaps even excessively stocked. Paranoids may not always have real and effective enemies, but in politics, as in life, paranoia can keep you safe.


Aaron Geisler said...

We "hope" so, but must keep up our guard. Look at the states with ammo serialization bills in the works.

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering if the dems are "patiently" awaiting the next mass shooting to spring gun control.

I see they are currently attacking Rush Limbaugh most likely in an effort to spring the "Fairness Doctrine".

So, create or await for something something, then announce the solution.

Anonymous said...

Our Situational Awareness or "SA" must remain high. Distraction is in the Dem play book.

George said...

Contrary to what many think is prudent, I suggest we actually open an offensive for EXPANDING/RECLAIMING our rights.

As noted, the Obama administration may be occupied with other things, so it might be a good time to try to gain the initiative. Stearns' bill is a good example of this. The fact that it may not go anywhere should not deter us.

I would rather be on the offensive than on the defensive.

Anonymous said...

I agree with George. To much of the time in the past we have spent our time reacting to the offence of the banners. And we wind up looseing ground, because politics is the art of the compromise. They would propose three extreme measures and we would have to agree with one in order to make the others go away. Plus to many of "our politicians" don't really care about us, just our votes, as much as not being distracted from their featherbedding/pork/logrolling. So they would pressure us to "compromise"
The problem is next year they are back with the other two and a new one.
But I hope we are getting enough people who see this as a full time commitment, just like the banners, that it may be time to push some laws in our favor.

Anonymous said...

George is right, wars are not won by defense and this is indeed a war. The "Cold war attack of the socialists against America' value has simply changed battlefields from the Berlin wall, to the Capital Mall. Why else would one worlder's like George Soros pour billions into the UN anti gun program.
We need to FORCE our legislators to slip pro 2A amendments into every bill the Dems want to pass as 1 condition of cooperation.
To Jr's boy, I'll be happy to compromise with the Dems, when we repeal the GCA 68 and NFA, they can keep the photo ID requirement, NICS , and they can continue to regulate anything over 1.25 inches in bore diameter . The only records allowed will be a NICS number after the serial number in the dealers logbook, and a list of issued NICS numbers kept by the FBI. (Numbers ONLY). SBR's SBS no longer regulated and if suppressors are regulated it will be by the FDA as a safety device.
Thomas C Bogan

Anonymous said...

We are not even a month into this adminstration's first term. Not sure it's quite time to lower the threat level.

Anonymous said...

We "hope" so, but must keep up our guard.

Robocop said...

So far, Obama has pulled some things out of left field to play. I would not be confident that he is backing off from limiting our gun rights. He will do it in a way which will amount to a sneak attack.

Anonymous said...

If his mouth was open he was lying! If one of his minions is talking you can be sure they are lying!

Jkwas said...

Good Article, I posted it as well. A great way to find these articles is to sign up for news alerts on google. Put in several key words like " Obama, gun contol, executive orders " and every day they send you an alert with links to the relevant articles. Google is your friend :)

Anonymous said...

I don't believe for a moment that gun control has taken a back seat in the Obama regeime. Considering how many items he's signed that were "pre-written" by the Dems, it's just a matter of time. We''d best be ready...

I also agree that the pro-2A supporters should go on the offensive. with record number of gun sales and increasing positive support in even the MSM, we'd never have a better time. And, while we're fighting DC, we may want to open a second front on the NRA leadership and get some more aggressive people in charge to wake up the 800lb gorilla...

Anonymous said...

The first week in office Obama stops off shore drilling, starts the close of Gitmo, pushes the Big Labor policy. all policies that have broad acceptance in this country to play up to his wacko base.

If you look at recent history, Clinton and both Bush's worried more about their interests than their party. The AWB will be up for a vote befor the summer break.

Ratcatcher 55

Chaz said...

Doherty is pretty obviously not a gun owner, so he has no stake in this issue. If he were a gun owner, he wouldn't be quite so cavalier about it, IMO. Just because the NObama! admininstration hasn't move yet on this issue doesn't mean that they've forgotten it. They have zealots of all kinds in their ranks, folks who're going to push their own personal agendas right along, day by day. The top guy doesn't have to be initiating everything, his minions can do that on their own. And being nibbled to death by ducks, done in by regulation after trivial regulation, buried under a mountain of regulation, is STILL DEATH - only at a slower pace. Rust never sleeps, and neither do the gun-haters. They've had eight years to build up their spleen toward us and we'd better be ready to fight.

Jay.Mac said...

Democrats don't seem to be particularly worried about the political blowback of their trillion dollar porkfest- the so-called stimulus will do nothing to help with the current economic situation but it will plunge the US into massive debt for generations to come.

If they'll take the chance to indulge in gluttonous spending like this in the middle of a crisis (not to mention their $93,000 petty cash pay-rise) then I seriously doubt that they'll consider the ramifications of gun control laws.

And with the GOP weakened, refusing to battle Holder, and a new chairman who favours an AWB- well, why should they even worry about Republicans?

Democrats are in power now- and they'll exploit every moment of their time. There's a major attack coming on the Second Amendment, no doubt about it.

Anonymous said...

What about HR 45?

Per the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners organization:

"What H.R. 45 Does
The legislation has three main components.
Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.

Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.
To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records -- including mental heath records -- to the Attorney General's office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an "appropriate" fee of $25 per firearm.

Additionally, every firearm sale would be recorded in a database, which would track the serial number, make, model and identity of the owner. The legislation would also make all private sales of firearms illegal, and a felony offense.

In addition to these regulations, the legislation includes excessive regulations and penalties for bureaucratic missteps from simple failures to report address changes to failure to report stolen weapons.

Provisions of H.R. 45 include:

Requires passing a written examination to purchase a firearm.

Releases medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the Attorney General for Government review.

Requires a two-day waiting period on all firearms purchases.

Institutes a fee of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

Creates a national database with all firearms and firearms owners registered by serial number with the Federal Government.

A Federal ban on all private firearms sales.

Increases in penalties for clerical errors related to this national firearms registry.


Who's sponsoring H.R. 45
H.R. 45 -- President Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act -- was written by Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush (D). It currently has no cosponsors.

But will it pass Congress?
Congressman Rush's bill an outrageous destruction of Constitutional Rights, but it's the compromises that are truly dangerous
Though far-left gun-haters routinely sponsor pie-in-the-sky legislation (anyone remember the days of Sen. Moynihan's annual 1000% tax on ammo?), H.R. 45 has set new lows for the depths to which hoplophobes will sink.

Is H.R. 45 dangerous? Yes. But is it likely to pass? No, not in its current form.... it's too far-reaching.

What is likely to pass, though, is a compromise, a deal cut with the gun-grabbers and the group that ostensibly represents gun owners, the NRA.

Think that can't happen? Rewind to the summer of 2007, when arch gun-hater Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy sat down with NRA board member Congressman John Dingell to craft a deal to expand Brady Checks into new realms of mental health records. A few months later, H.R. 2640 passed...with the approval of the NRA and McCarthy.

Congressman Rush's gun control ideas are much, much more dangerous as amendments to legislation that is already advancing.

Remember the Brady Bill? It didn't pass as a stand-alone bill. It passed as an amendment.

Even more frightening was that it passed with the approval of the NRA (click here for that full story)

The same is true of the Lautenberg Domestic Abuse ban, the Assault Weapons ban, 1986 McClure-Volkmer (which bans the manufacture of transferable machine guns), the 1968 Gun Control Act, and numerous other examples (especially if you look at state legislation).