CDZ What was the most limiting/effective gun regulation since WWII

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Toronado3800, Jun 3, 2017.

  1. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,308
    Thanks Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +590
    Sometime I accuse one of the parties of giving lip service to banning guns. What Federal or State regulations are the most effective (troublesome?) to those looking to legally buy guns?
     
  2. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    102,980
    Thanks Received:
    9,750
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +42,232
    I can legally buy guns out of a newspaper ad...Laws, well they only work if people are willing to abide by them....
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,981
    Thanks Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,534
    Universal Background checks......they are the first step to getting universal gun registration....which is the next to last step to banning and confiscating guns....it may take years between the enacting of the 3 steps....but that is how it was done in Britain, Germany, and Australia.

    Then you have the attacks on the Lawful Commerce in Arms act........if this act goes away, it will allow gun banners to attack gun makers with fake law suits...to sue them out of business...and that was the plan hilary was going to use if she won the Presidency....

    Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



    Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

    But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

    The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

    This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

    The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

    The terms were extensive and drastic:

    Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

    The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

    Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

    After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

    But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

    The dealers in turn must agree:

    They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

    They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

    They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

    They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

    They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

    The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

    The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

    The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

    Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.



    Read more: Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,981
    Thanks Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,534
    And as to now, compared to the long term plans of anti-gunners.....the laws of New York, California and Maryland.......that keep people from owning rifles with magazines.....and the banning of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds...since that effectively bans a lot of pistols as well as rifles.....for no reason....

    and with the 4th Circuit Court of appeals ruling on the Baltimore rifle ban.....they endanger the 2nd Amendment completely.....

    The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller

    The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like.

    In Heller, the Supreme Court took three related positions:

    First, that firearms “in common use” may not be banned;

    second, that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and

    third, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.

    In a follow-up case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.”


    Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection.

    In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs forget....Hell Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,311
    Thanks Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +986
    You make a good point and I check and its true. This is just the goal of Clinton and Soros for they fear the day that the USA wakes up to find them being used by the Super Rich as "workers" at low wages living as 3rd world Country with open boarders with drugs flooding the streets, and death panels killing of people disabled and over a certain age. Yep, there would an uprising armed and violent. Just keep electing Progressives to Government positions and this will occur
     
  6. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,308
    Thanks Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +590
    Thanks for the two good long responses.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs forget....Hell Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,311
    Thanks Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +986
    1923 or the limit on owning machine guns....For sure.
     
  8. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,076
    Thanks Received:
    1,514
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,201
    Legalized concealed carry laws.
     
  9. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    19,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,779
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,379
    As far as buying them, NYS, NYC, and DC have the most limiting laws.
     
  10. Marion Morrison
    Offline

    Marion Morrison Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    17,035
    Thanks Received:
    3,429
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +18,009

    All of them. :rolleyes-41:

    UBC, "Assault weapon ban", The thing after Oswald, Having to have an LLC to get a suppressor, having to have class III for certain weapons.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page