Get off the defensive?

[EvilBetty]

Seems like Anti-Gun is on the offensive, and all 2A and Pro-Gun like minds are constantly on the defensive.

Is the NRA and other organizations looking for a way to push back? How about pressure some leadership to propose bills to repeal some of the other unconstitutional laws?

Like all anti-gun portions of the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" (1986), the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" (1934) and the"The Gun Control Act" (1968)

I agree with some of the conversations, these laws do need to be updated!

Individuals should be able to handle a person to person sale of of a firearm with a person from a neighboring state. Especially with family.

A person should be able to buy any weapon from an FFL in a neighboring state.

Suppressors and short barreled rifles should not be listed as NFA items.

Our fore-fathers did have muskets. Same as the forces they were fighting against. The purchase of new Class III fully-automatic weapons should not be prohibited by the ATF's unwillingness to issue a tax stamp to a law abiding citizen.

Importation of foreign firearms should not be prohibited or limited with any nation in which the USA has trade agreements. The 922(r)'s ruling on guns of "Sporting Purpose" is purposefully inaccurate. And such a limitation is unconstitutional.

Now... lets get those bills sent to congress.

"Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress."

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Suppressors and SBRs should be a relatively easy win IF gun owners and the NRA carred enough to get behind it. As long as Congress is considering expanding NICS to private sales, any considerations should also include this. Buying a suppressor should certainly be no more complicated than buying a gun.

[EvilBetty]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Suppressors and SBRs should be a relatively easy win IF gun owners and the NRA carred enough to get behind it. As long as Congress is considering expanding NICS to private sales, any considerations should also include this. Buying a suppressor should certainly be no more complicated than buying a gun.

It should be no more complicated than buying a muzzle break.

[venomballistics]

Originally Posted by EvilBetty

It should be no more complicated than buying a muzzle break.

exactly. Like a brake, or a grip, or a scope, stand alone it has no way of being a weapon.
short barreled rifles and shotguns should be no harder than a pistol.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by EvilBetty

It should be no more complicated than buying a muzzle break.

Right. But if you're talking about legislation you'll be getting laughs instead of votes with the above position. There is a saying... don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd be quite happy moving forward to just a NICS appoval instead of being stuck where I am now.... waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting. Get rid of the hassle, increase use and popularity, then we might have a chance of legislation to buy a can at Ace Hardware.

[EvilBetty]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Right. But if you're talking about legislation you'll be getting laughs instead of votes with the above position. There is a saying... don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd be quite happy moving forward to just a NICS appoval instead of being stuck where I am now.... waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting. Get rid of the hassle, increase use and popularity, then we might have a chance of legislation to buy a can at Ace Hardware.

I don't know. I'd like to see it tried. I'd really like to see the counter argument as to why you should not be able to buy one at Wal-Mart.

The only thing I could see sighted would be from James Bond movies.

Having to purchase it as a weapons seems as retarded as having to purchase Scotts yard fertilizer as if it's an explosive.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The arguments against silencers are the same as before, including a new one to avoid high-tech gunshot detection systems used by authorities.

But the real problem is that most gun owners don't care. They dont use them so who cares. Many have been conditioned to believe that silencers are used by criminals and illegal for a civilian to own. There is still a stigma that exists. Only recently has the NRA begun to warm up to silencers.

On the bright side, silencers are beginning to become more popular. Most states allow silencers, some hunting restrictions have been lifted and there is a significant increase in NFA transfers in total, which I'm guessing is largely silencers. We're headed in the right direction..

Hopefully everyone here is writing thier representatives asking for repeal of the NFA.

[EvilBetty]

Sadly everything you say is true. Which is why control needs to be given back to the states. The Federal government has no business banning or regulating anything from use by an American citizen. Those powers should remain solely with each state and their municipalities. No one in California should be telling someone in Arkansas what they can and cannot do when it has no affect on them one way or another.

[vikgorr]

[QUOTE=EvilBetty;137049397]

Is the NRA and other organizations looking for a way to push back? How about pressure some leadership to propose bills to repeal some of the other unconstitutional laws?

Like all anti-gun portions of the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" (1986), the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" (1934) and the"The Gun Control Act" (1968)

I'd start with 1996 Laudenberg deal. A misdemeanor is not a felony. I'd love to retire to the woods, but how am I gonna survive there without 30-06 and shot gun? Can't have 'em because 40 years ago unwillingly got in a bar fight. If that is not restriction of freedom, then so is not jail. NRA should not have let them get away with this.

[EvilBetty]

I knew vaguely of that law but not the details until now. This "exemption" still has my head spinning.

Exemptions
Under the federal law governing possession of firearms by police or military while on duty (18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1)), an officer under a current protection order, or even one who has a conviction for murdering a spouse, may legally be in possession of a service firearm, but an officer convicted of one of the misdemeanor violations listed in the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) is prohibited from possessing any firearms or ammunition at any time under any circumstances.[7]