Obama on gun sales
AFP:
President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that lawful gun owners have “nothing to fear” from his incoming administration so there is no reason for Americans to stock up on guns.
Gun shops across the country have reported increased sales amid fears that Obama intends to restrict gun sales after taking office on January 20.
While Obama supports gun control, he has repeatedly denied any intention of “taking away folks’ guns.”
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the second amendment of the US constitution and gun control is a hot-button political issue.
“I believe in common sense gun safety law, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a press conference Sunday.
“And so, lawful gun owners have nothing to fear.
“I’ve said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition, and I think that people can take me at my word.”
Well, nothing to fear unless you have an assault weapon; or a handgun; or want to use one for self-defense; or carry one. As long as you’re law-abiding and don’t want to do any of that. Oh, and stop buying so many.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I was pondering on this the other day – in a world where commodities prices are declining across the board, only the price of weapons and ammunition are increasing – all because of fears of what Barry (or his minions) might do.
Perhaps the cleverest thing he could do for the first couple years is NOT issue any executive orders, push for the enaction of any bans, and actually work to stop any such actions on the part of Dems.
The result might be wholesale slaughter in the gun business – and without the huge political negatives associated with bans and such.. The “voices of doom” that are telling us that he’s gonna take our guns would be humiliated and marginalized, and when they start slipping in “reasonable gun control”, the public will let it ride..
I have no actual idea what he’ll do, but the dude is NOT stupid, and duplicating the ’94 ban would seem a particularly bonehead move right now. Whatever he does, I bet it WON’T be something we’re expecting.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:09 am
So he made a promise. We’ll see if he keeps it. Lets all hold our breath.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
On my blog, which is anti-gun, among other things, I once asked about this and didn’t get a clear answer. Where do you draw the line? Assault weapons, assuming we can agree on a description, may be necessary for self defense. Fine. What about surface-to-air rocket launchers? What about other artillery-type weapons? Should they also approved for private ownership?
If it sounds like a smart-aleck question, it’s not.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Good question. Rational arguments include:
What infantry carries (basis on militia writings at the time of founding).
Weapons that are not unusual or dangerous (heller ruling)
And there are others. And we had that discussion once here.
But, honestly, the old can you own nukes line is tiring and unproductive since it’s not even on the table.
And you can lawfully own artillery weapons, provided you fill out various forms and pay a $200 tax stamp.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Mikeb,
I’ve long believed that, like class III weapons, a shoulder-fired missile launcher should be within the rights of a law-abiding citizen. Granted, I haven’t a clue what regs, fees, licensing, etc. the government would impose for a shoulder-fired missile launcher, but I figure if someone can afford it and is willing to go through all the hoops required to get it, a law-abiding citizen should be able to get one.
Can you imagine what a shoulder-fired missile would do to an old car? Way cool. 😉
December 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
You won’t get a clear answer because different groups have different opinions. I, personally, don’t mind the registration for automatic weapons (although the tax stamps for silencers are ridiculous, and the creation/import ban is idiotic), but a lot of people rather justly get their dander up about having the federal government treating them like criminals for trying to own a fairly bland gun completely legally.
The pro-gun side isn’t some giant hive mind taking orders from instapundit, kimdutoit, or the NRA.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
It appears that the Clintons have won the election. Campaigning during for his first term, Bill declared he’d enact a “Middle Class Tax Cut.” That promise didn’t last a month after the election when Bill tossed it out the window.
BO appears to be doing the same. The difference is all those promises to the left wing nutjobs that is going out the window.
Now with most of the Clinton staff back in various positions, we see what happens. Yes, there is a real danger of another “Assault Weapons ban” and other gun-grabber initiatives. The Clintons pushed them and I expect they will again.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Mikeb, when you find someone that can actually afford an RPG, or an artillery cannon, or a battleship, along with a good size supply for said weapons and the ability to keep replenishing the ammo supply for a good while, and the ability to hire additional crew members to operate the weapon…then maybe people can start drawing the line about these weapons, if possible.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
As I have commented here before, I just don’t believe that the Dems will spend time and effort on guns at this moment. The economy is the headline-grabber, and health care, education, and other social programs seem to be at the top of everybody’s list. That is several years’ worth of contentious, hard-fought legislation right there.
The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed the Senate 65-31. An earlier version, with a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, was voted down 8-90. So, as of 3 years ago, there was not sufficient political will in the Senate to pass an AWB. Things have changed, but I don’t think they have changed enough to move from 8-90 to >50. So I honestly don’t think we’ll see an AWB. It has become sort of a catchphrase for failed legislation. Everybody except the McCarthyites has seen that it was a failure, an embarrassment.
Then there’s the issue of Executive Orders. That is a lot more scary, but will only affect imports. Surplus ammo might come to an end, and imported guns and ammo will probably see a lot more restrictions. Probably no more Russian arms or ammo. So I think the people buying up the AR’s are probably out of touch. AR’s are domestically made. AK’s (and parts kits) are far more likely to be effectively banned from import.
As for where to draw the line. Yeesh. I don’t know. I could go back and forth in my head forever on that one. On the one hand, allowing explosives (grenades, missiles, etc.) seems like asking for trouble. On the other, it’s easy enough to manufacture your own explosives out of common materials. So I really don’t know. I would be happy with full-autos being re-allowed by a re-opening of the NFA list (still require $200 tax); doing away with all import restrictions (if it’s legal to be US-made, it should be legal to be imported); legalization/de-regulation of suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and “Any Other Weapons”; so, basically, making the NFA only apply to full-auto weapons of any type, and eliminating any and all lines of “sporting purposes” reasoning.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Private citizens/entities can already own tanks and military planes. For the planes I think the weapon mounts have to be removed; I have no idea if tanks have to be altered. In either case, it’s probably not an impossible amount of work to undo those alterations. I’ve also read that in various wars, wealthy Americans have sometimes outfitted their own land and even sea units out of their own pocket. At the end of the war, these were decommissioned from that role.
I think that, in short, the level of scrutiny as applied to the First Amendment should be applied to the Second Amendment as well. It is essentially impossible for there to be a prior government restraint on speech, with even “national security” not always enough of a reason. Now, should you go and actually say/write something prohibited, they’re free to come down on you like a ton of bricks.
It should be the same for the Second Amendment. If you want to collect automatic Uzis and RPG-7s and the like…go for it. As long as the government doesn’t legitimately get the idea that you’re planning domestic terrorism or other mayhem, so what? If you start to dangerously misuse these things, and presuming there are any bits of you left to scrape up, we’ll prosecute the heck out of you and send you away for a very long time. Think of how we treat fertilizer: you can pretty much buy as much as you want, but if the government gets the suspicion that you’re not a farmer or a fertilizer afficionado, you might expect a visit to chit-chat.
If we’re going to say that civilians shouldn’t have whatever types of firearms because they don’t need them or because others can be hurt, that’s inconsistent. Is there any serious movement to ban various cursewords from the lexicon of everyone except sailors and union workers? What you’d need is something in firearms that approximates “obscenity” as a standard. Guns specifically designed to kill children would probably fit that (or explosives packed into toy dolls), but if there’s a legitimate military use then the weapon would pass.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Even back in the 18th century, they had things called “infernal devices” that were, if not specifically banned, considered to be unacceptable to possess or use – most of which took the form of what we now call IEDs.
I’d rather see rules and laws that addressed what you actually DID with an object (and I bet you would, too), rather than try to regulate the object (like guns, rockets, etc.) or material (like, say, ammonium nitrate fertilizer). The problem is, we’ve been banning objects and materials, generally in the name of some sort of “safety” for a long time (drugs, fireworks, guns) and establishing close control of other “dangerous things” through devices like OSHA (think chainsaws or electric service).
It will be VERY hard to convince the American People that doing this sort of thing is wrong..and in the end, it’s what today’s people think that counts, not what the Founders thought back in the late 18th.
I’d be very interested if anyone has an idea on how to make it happen, though..:-)
December 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
elsewhere i’ve seen argued — and i partly agree, actually — that all kinds of weaponry should be legal, but with restrictions commensurate to the risks if they’re abused or misused. the extreme example was that you should be allowed to own a nuke, provided you store and use it well away from any planet humans live on. can’t afford a lockable nuke safe in the asteroid belt? tough, do without owning nukes. handguns and rifles? much less worrisome even in a worst-case scenario, so much less restricted.
the system we’ve got currently is a bit down those lines, as we know. RPGs get heavily restricted because they throw explosive charges around, as do mortars and modern artillery, and the risks involved if those explosives got thrown around where they oughtn’t are considerable. in a strict “useful to the militia” regime all of those ought to be allowed, but it’d give even me the willies to know my somewhat shady neighbor had a crate of RPG-7’s in her house.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Just a comment from a casual reader, regarding the nukes/rpgs red herring.
Let’s make a first amendment analogy, then.
Why should an individual be allowed to own a newspaper or television station? A single person could destroy a whole lot more lives with one of those…
Regards,
December 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Word.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
When the Second Amendment was drafted, private citizens could buy cannon without a permit … many American merchant vessels had privately owned cannons on them.
The original fight at Lexington and Concord was touched off because a Mr. John Hancock donated a pair of cannons to the local militia. The Redcoats were sent specifically to seize them ( they didn’t get them, BTW … they were un-carriaged and buried in a corn field before they arrived ).
I’ll give Mikeb points for not trotting out the Nuclear Strawman himself ….
December 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
and so you can still, provided you’re willing to settle for the same kinds of pieces anyway. more modern pieces, as well as explosive shells, are more tightly controlled — but still available, if you’re willing to jump through the hoops. so they should be, in my opinion, on both counts.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
It’s not whether you can afford an RPG or a French 75, a Bofors 40mm pom-pom gun or even a battleship – it’s whether you can afford the Insurance and the Legal Team.
Every artillery shell and Big-Whatsis-Banger comes with many more Lawyers attached than any bullet.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
A Porche is expensive to buy; expensive to maintain; impractical (as it only seats 2); goes faster than the law allows, and kills many people every year. Guns on the other hand are a right, given to every American citizen as deterrent to tyranny, a hunting, sporting, and personal protection tool. Obama, and those who share his views need to get rid of those “unnecessary” sports cars before they try to take away our rights.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Obama is one sneaky dude, and he knows exactly what he is doing.
The reason Obama is speaking out against the panic buying is because the more so-called “assault weapons” that are in the hands of the public, the more difficult it will be to ban them. And make no mistake, Obama has always claimed he would ban them despite his meaningless platitudes about ‘supporting the 2nd Amendment’.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:25 am
The key is the phrase, “common-sense gun safety laws”. Common sense for a man from Chicago, where only the police and the criminal gangs (but I repeat myself) may own guns.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
What, if anything, could Obama (or any other President, for that matter) do to the Civilian Marksmanship Program without Congress?
December 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
DaveP: The other key phrase is “lawful gun owners have nothing to fear”.
The Law is a fluid thing, and is drafted by persons of questionable ethics, honor and honesty. A legislator who wishes to ban arms can rationalize that such a ban is permitted by the 2A for some convoluted reason that is illogical and unsupportable to the rest of us; then that will be The Law. How many will suffer while the supreme court – which is growing less and less faithful to the Constitution – considers and possibly voids that law?
Of such ever-narrowing walls are our cages built.