http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4429245/
Is this the final nail in the drive to remove private gun ownership?
Do you feel that the shift has finally come and they will have the gun bans ala England and Australia with 5- 10 years here?
Ain’t no ban on guns in Australia as far as I’m aware. Maybe you shouldn’t pay so much attention to NRA propaganda bullshit.
Nah. Berfore the bill’s author withdrew his support, they had 75 votes lined up in favor of the immunity bill. That hardly sounds like a Senate frothing at the mouth to ban guns. I think the “assault gun” ban is stupid, but I also think the insistence that gun buyers be allowed to circumvent background checks just by arranging to meet at a gun show is stupid, so the bill got killed by petty feuding more than a desire to kill guns.
Nitpick: there’s no ‘gun ban’ in England (or the rest of Britain) except for handguns, and even these may be carried by some authorized police. There is gun control - get a license, prove why you need it, bada bing, you can own a gun.
Don’t you mean “the straw that broke the camel’s gun”?
This is only a “final nail” in the most paranoid of delusions. The bill was a pro-gun-industry liability bill–and it had majority Senate support until an anti-gun-merchant rider was tacked on.
A “full gun ban” would require the repealing of Amendment #2 by another Amendment. So you’d need 67 Senators AND 290 Representatives in the same session of Congress OR the legislatures of 34 states to believe such a move was necessary just to get it on the agenda.
Then you’d need the legislatures or Constitutional Conventions of 38 states to pass the Amendment (US Constitution, Article V)
Name me the people and/or the states that are going to perform this feat, and then you’ll convince me that there’s a “full gun ban” in the works.
Head them off at the pass: go to your state capital and volunteer for the prescribed “well-ordered militia” so you can give the 2nd Amendment the legs it needs to overcome any such attacks.
I don’t know of any countries that outright ban all civillian ownership of firearms. The types can be extremely limited and legal requirements quite onerous like in Japan.
BTW there is no gunshow loophole either. The loophole is that private individuals can sell their privately owned firearms to other private individuals in most states. The gunshow has nothing to do with it. Personally, I think that losing this would be more detrimental than getting the Ban renewed. Buying and selling firearms privately in a manner (volume and profit) that the BATF considers dealing is also a federal felony.
The so-called loophole exists so that firearms belonging to one private citizen can be transferred to another private citizen without having to pay an exorbitant fee to a FFL holding dealer in order to make the transfer happen. It’s nice to know it’s there because I stand to inherit quite a few guns and so long as private citizen to private citizen transfers don’t require a background check, I probably will not have to sell any of the antique firearms that are now family heirlooms.
It’s already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private citizen, to sell a firearm to someone who would be prohibited by law from owning one. For this reason, and the fact that criminals want their stuff cheap, I’ve never met a gun owner who would just sell a gun to any random stranger.
The anti-gun amendments are what killed this bill. Take those amendments off, and the original bill would pass.
To directly answer the OP, No. The original bill was a good one, the gun-control advocates tried to take advantage of it’s support by throwing on three amendments which had no chance of passing on their own. At this point, I might add. But as long as Mr. Schumer and Ms. Feinstein are in office, there will be gun-control legislation in the works.
The net effect of this is that:
- People will be able to sue gun manufacturers, just like they always have been able to.
- The assault-weapons ban will almost surely expire in September.
IOW, the only change that’s about to happen is towards greater private gun ownership rights.
How that works against private gun ownership, I can’t figure out.
Your misinterpretation of the Constitution aside, nobody has suggested anything close to a “full gun ban”. There’s your “paranoid delusion”.
Not to either hi-jack nor to beat up on Scot, but in my copy of the constitution, the phrase is:
“… well regulated militia …”