Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why the ATF didn't outlaw your ammunition this week

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-23-10
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    181

    Why the ATF didn't outlaw your ammunition this week

    Ammoland- why the ATF didn't outlaw your ammunition.. this week

    "The ATF didn't want to stir America’s 100 million gun owners into opposition. Yes, even the gun owning old Fudds who think they are immune from politics could wake up. Gun owners, that sleeping mass of Americans, might wake up and realize that Obama wants to take their guns after all. These “non-political” gun owners are a giant the ATF wants to leave alone.. at least through the next election."

    What say you?
    Rob
    Cogito, ergo armatum sum

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Morse View Post
    Ammoland- why the ATF didn't outlaw your ammunition.. this week

    "The ATF didn't want to stir America’s 100 million gun owners into opposition. Yes, even the gun owning old Fudds who think they are immune from politics could wake up. Gun owners, that sleeping mass of Americans, might wake up and realize that Obama wants to take their guns after all. These “non-political” gun owners are a giant the ATF wants to leave alone.. at least through the next election."

    What say you?
    Rob
    If this administration can effectively disarm us, they won't have to be concerned about the next election because there won't be a next election. At all. Ever.

    Don't forget, we are dealing with socialists here. Socialism cannot be instituted freely. It must be instituted dictatorially. A dictatorship cannot be foisted upon an effectively armed populace. Don't expect this administration to shy away from any moves that will disarm us.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    If this administration can effectively disarm us, they won't have to be concerned about the next election because there won't be a next election. At all. Ever.
    I used to believe that but marijuana changed my mind.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...816_story.html

    The state of Washington runs its own marijuana stores even though the federal government prohibits it. What is to keep a state from similarly violating any such ban on firearms or ammunition?

    I can see this coming soon already. Public perception on firearm suppressors is changing and I would not find it surprising if a state decided it's a bit fed up with six month waiting times for the federal government to approve the transfer of a suppressor. Feral pigs are becoming a severe issue and they learn what a rifle report means.

    The federal government may want to disarm us but I don't expect the states to comply.

    Every day that the federal government allows Washington to sell marijuana to its residents is proof of how out of touch, and impotent, the federal government has become.

    The federal government has their opinion on what is illegal, the states have theirs, let the federal government enforce their opinion.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,796
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    I used to believe that but marijuana changed my mind.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...816_story.html

    The state of Washington runs its own marijuana stores even though the federal government prohibits it. What is to keep a state from similarly violating any such ban on firearms or ammunition?

    I can see this coming soon already. Public perception on firearm suppressors is changing and I would not find it surprising if a state decided it's a bit fed up with six month waiting times for the federal government to approve the transfer of a suppressor. Feral pigs are becoming a severe issue and they learn what a rifle report means.

    The federal government may want to disarm us but I don't expect the states to comply.

    Every day that the federal government allows Washington to sell marijuana to its residents is proof of how out of touch, and impotent, the federal government has become.

    The federal government has their opinion on what is illegal, the states have theirs, let the federal government enforce their opinion.
    Well, smoking pot won't stop the feds from subjugating us. If anything, it'll help pacify us. Bullets will stop them, however. That's where you will see a big difference in enforcement.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,405
    Quote Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
    Well, smoking pot won't stop the feds from subjugating us. If anything, it'll help pacify us. Bullets will stop them, however. That's where you will see a big difference in enforcement.

    Woody
    Perhaps we need to just agree to disagree. I'll explain a bit further to show why I believe what I do.

    Look at what features that the federal government has used to define an "assault weapon":
    - Flash suppressor
    - Report suppressor
    - Muzzle brake
    - Forward grip
    - Threaded barrel, used to attach a flash suppressor, report suppressor, muzzle brake, or forward grip
    - Pistol grip
    - Barrel shroud

    What else do these features have in common? Safety. These are features one would want on a firearm to prevent injury. Any attempt to ban firearms with these features can be easily countered on the basis that firearms that lack these features are less safe than those that do. Why it took me so long to realize this is only slightly less disturbing by the fact that entities like the NRA does not make the safety argument every time this is brought up.

    Then there are features brought up in such proposed bans like semi-automatic action (and sometimes pump action), grenade launcher mounts, bayonet mounts, adjustable (or folding) stocks, barrel length, and similarity to automatic firearms. These features could be argued as cosmetic (which the NRA tends to do), as nonsense, or possibly another safety feature.

    Another argument that I like to make is that features like semi-automatic operation, forward grips, magazine capacity, and others are their usefulness to the disabled. For example, I know people that have lost a hand, fingers, dexterity (from arthritis or carpal tunnel syndrome), that would make it difficult to work a pump, bolt, or lever action firearm as well as change magazines. Those that wish to ban these features can be called out as people that hate the elderly and disabled.

    There is another reason that the states would fight back on such federal prohibitions beyond decreasing safety and hating on the handicapped. The reason is money. States make money on taxes from firearm manufacturers and sales. States make money on hunting and rely on hunters to control wildlife. States have to spend money on arming their law enforcement, and these prohibitions always have exceptions for law enforcement but they will only make getting these features/items more expensive for the law enforcement agencies.

    On top of all of this is what I stated before, when the states pushed back the federal government caved in.

    I don't recall much, if anything, coming from the states in response to the ATF proposing a ban on green tip ammo. Perhaps they didn't have enough time to make their opposition known (this came and went rather quickly based on public outcry alone), it was overshadowed by public outcry, or maybe the states did make this known but not publicly.

    A federal prohibition on ammunition would be especially weak to a state override like what has happened with marijuana. Ammunition, like marijuana, is a consumable. Ammunition is fungible, one is much like another. States have already tested federal prohibitions and they blinked, doing it again would appear quite likely. States have experience in trade of controlled goods, whether that be with marijuana, alcohol, prescription drugs, milk, eggs, or meat. They know how to regulate industries and ammunition is no different.

    Then I get back to a point I made elsewhere in this forum, the government can only govern with the consent of the governed. The government might make it law to prohibit "assault weapons" but we have seen that people can and will subvert such laws. We've seen this happen in Canada with its firearm registry. We've seen this on a state level. I suspect that there will come a point where not only will future prohibitions be openly challenged and violated we will see existing prohibitions challenged as well.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,796
    IA_farmboy,

    We're not far apart at all. I think what you are discussing and advocating is nullification. I, too, am a fan of the several states nullifying bogus federal law.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-05-07
    Location
    Injun Country - NM
    Posts
    701
    Some comments:
    NULLIFICATION is alive and well - last that I read, Oklahoma and Kansas make 7 states that now have state legislation telling the Fed to forget trying to enforce unwelcome Fed gun laws - that are all Unconstitutional on their face - in their states.
    The basis of ALL Federal gun laws are counter to the Constitution - the Second Amendment clearly says "HANDS OFF" in no uncertain terms. The problem - the public the states and the courts do not follow the Constitution, not just on the Second Amendment, but the First, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth - just for starters. Until there is a concerted effort BY THE STATES, to force the Fed to go back to the stated Requirements and Allowance to govern (Tenth Amendment), we are dealing with a rogue government.
    Two classic blatant and in-your-face Fed overstepping the Constitution: There are now a series of citizen videos of being harassed by the Border Patrol - 50-100 miles north of the border. In each case, the BP flaunts the law in numerous ways, knowingly and willingly. Another instance: The SCOTUS handed down a decision recently, stating that any Law Enforcement officer that transgresses the 4th Amendment, through ignorance of the law, is not breaking the law - a free ride to break into anywhere, anytime! These are just a tiny indicator of the Police State mentality that is becoming "POLICY" - and scary! We all have to stand up for the answer to gun control: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"! A law that is Unconstitutional is ripe (legal term) for NULLIFICATION!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •