What If…
So now that the “assault weapons ban” is gone, what’s our next goal? One of the blogs I frequent (I can’t remember which one! If it’s yours, leave a comment) suggests going after the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act. This is the law that (among other things) froze the supply of new machine guns for 2nd-class citizens…I mean, non-government-employees.
Just think about all the “assault weapons” hysteria we had to endure. Now think how much worse the screaming would be if Congress wanted to allow regular people to buy brand-new for-real MACHINE GUNS.
Or would it? After all, most people thought that’s what “assault weapons” were. Won’t people be confused when the papers and TV start broadcasting their dire warnings of blood running in the street and bullet-hoses unleashed on our schoolyards? Won’t they look around and see that the AWB expired, and none of the predicted disasters came to pass?
Oh, who am I kidding?
October 19th, 2004 at 10:03 pm
Nationwide CCW.
October 19th, 2004 at 10:24 pm
You’re going to get a lot of push back from moderate gun supporters for liberal CCW laws.
October 19th, 2004 at 10:37 pm
I think nationwide CCW would a bad thing, since letting states like CA have input of CCW standards will probably make it HARDER for people in states like PA to get permits.
I think the best next step is the repeal of the import ban on “non-sporting” firearms.
October 19th, 2004 at 11:19 pm
I’d like to see a repeal of all laws based on the country of origin of the gun. It leads to completely arbitrary laws that can make a gun illegal if made overseas yet legal if made in the U.S.
I’d also like to see an end to the distinction between handguns and rifles.
October 20th, 2004 at 12:00 am
I’ve blogged about the Hughes Amendment as the next target, in the hopes of exploiting the media confusion about assault weapons. Specifically, it will be very difficult for them to retain credibility when we come out to repeal a ban on machine guns… right after the press has been spending so much time lamenting that we have already let expire a ban on “machine guns”.
The lack of relevant crime is in our favor as well. Consider a tagline: “Terrorists can buy machineguns. Do terrorists have more right to self-defense than honest Americans?”
Or perhaps “Bring back the Homeland Defense Rifle!”
The alternatives are slim pickings. Fighting the .50 ban in California is a local issue, and we shouldn’t let it distract us from the national stage.
The handgun ban in DC needs to fall to one of the court challenges presently being heard — we should repeal that if and only if those challenges ultimately fail.
The immediate task, though, is to get pro-gun Senators elected if at all possible, and then to force confirmation of pro-gun justices in a second Bush term if the election turns out that way.
October 20th, 2004 at 12:23 am
Nationwide CCW.
October 20th, 2004 at 3:41 am
Any gun-related bill is probably going to have amendments allowing for AWB as well as closing the “gun show loophole” as was the case with the liability bill. You have to ask yourself if adding either of those onto a bill that recognizes the 2nd Amendment is worthwhile.
October 20th, 2004 at 8:18 am
Manish, you’re probably right: any bill intended to loosen existing restrictions is going to have one or more “poison pill” amendments tacked on.
October 20th, 2004 at 8:21 am
Uhm, I think you also saw the hughes amendment stuff here.
– yeah, the sporting purpose import laws (how the fuck are you supposed to know what % of parts are made here or overseas).
– $200 NFA tax
– Hughes
– Short barreled rifle and shotgun laws. I mean I can make an AR15 pistol with a 7 inch barrel by not putting a stock on it but not a 14 inch barrel M4 clone?
THere’s plenty more. But that’s a start.
October 20th, 2004 at 8:24 am
Heh. Ever have one of those days where you’re looking for your glasses, but you’re really wearing them?
October 20th, 2004 at 9:46 am
well i said it here
http://sandcastlesandcubicles.blogspot.com/2004/09/what.html
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
I would even be willing to accept a lot of paper work, though not willing to pay for a full FBI background check. I think that would make it not worth the effort.
October 20th, 2004 at 9:49 am
on the CCW issue, just move to the south.
http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/reciprocity/reciprocity.asp
October 20th, 2004 at 10:56 am
We don’t need nationwide CCW, we need nationwide reciprocity and uniform application laws. Let DC and NY and Massachusetts pass all the laws they want, as long as I can still carry my Glock on me when I visit. That will quickly show how stupid the laws they have are.
October 20th, 2004 at 12:00 pm
There probably would be some trade-offs, but they needn’t be that onerous. The trick is to exchange something that makes good copy but which you don’t really care that much about, in for the serious, substantive reforms you do care about. Trading nationwide CCW for an end to the relatively meaningless “gun show loophole” would be a bargain.
October 20th, 2004 at 1:00 pm
The thing that worries me about “closing the gun show loophole” is that it might result in the end of ALL transfers that don’t involve a FFL holder.
October 20th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Trading nationwide CCW for an end to the relatively meaningless “gun show loophole” would be a bargain.
True, but it would also probably come with AWB.
October 20th, 2004 at 4:03 pm
Thib, I agree, but I’m not sure why that’s such a bad thing. California has a lot of really, really bad gun laws, but this one is a relatively minor nuisance: go through a dealer, pay an extra $30 or so, no big whoop.
Manish: an AWB would be a bigger whoop. Still, if forced to choose between a law prohibiting me from carrying any gun for self-defense, vs. a law prohibiting me from owning a a few specific makes and models, I’d have to say the latter is the lesser evil.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:32 pm
I can already carry a firearm for self defense though. So it’s more a case of me giving up my right to own certain firearms for Massachusettes’ right to carry a firearm for self defense.
Well, screw Massachusettes.