Kim du Toit posted a link to an anti-gun lobby wish list. It's a document entitled Hand Gun Control Inc 1993 Plan.
The whole thing seems a bit odd. Not just the ludicrous proposals but the grouping of them together coupled with a true ignorance of the material they're discussing. So I'm not at all certain this is legit. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It's always a mistake to think. "No; he/she/they can't be that stupid". So the things that seem like they're reaching (even for the anti-gun lobby) could very well be legitimate.
So I'm hedging my bet a tad by saying it could be fake but then again it could be genuine, with my guess leaning toward the genuine since it seems to fit their agenda & level of sophistication for that time.
Now if you read through the thing you'll see errors in logic & fact that any 14 year old hunter could point out. I thought about fisking the damn thing (& I still might) as it'd be too easy but then again it'd also be time consuming & there's something more important I'd like to point out.
Have you read it yet? If not please do. Here's the link again.
Did any parts of their plan piss you off? Did the plan as a whole disgust you? Well there's something that should upset you even more:
They have a Plan.
We. Do. Not.
Please spare me the talk of the NRA having a plan but not wanting to reveal it to the enemy. In a country with laws protecting a specific Right there should not be any reason for secrecy in mounting a defense for same. I don't buy the "playing politics" angle nor do I think that this kind of war we're in calls for secrecy.
The fact is that the NRA is a self serving organization & if they piss away my Rights in order to preserve themselves or their interests then I'm SOL. Ditto for the firearms industry (with a few exceptions). If the NRA has a plan I won't like it because it'll likely involve trading something I have for something they want.
But regardless there is no plan to speak of for the protection of our Rights. Neither is there one for the restoration of Rights we have lost.
That changes today.
I've talked about this a time or two before with some other gun bloggers & some good ideas popped up but nothing as concrete as I'd have liked. So what I'm going to do is lay out my wish list & ask you to chip in your two cents. I don't care if you disagree with a single item or all of them I want to know what your opinion is. Tell me why you disagree & then tell me how the best way to implement what we can agree on is.
For starters U.S. v. Miller has caused more problems than I care to admit - so let's remove the source. A repeal of the NFA as amended by the GCA of 68 & the FOPA of 86. Next we come to the "sporting purposes" bullshit. Eliminate the GCA in its entirety. Brady law? Repeal it. Lautenburg amendment? Say buh-bye. License requirement to sell firearms? C'ya.
But the how's & why's you ask?
The NFA imposes registration under the guise of taxation for certain items which the people have a Right to possess. Short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, fully automatic firearms & sound suppressors all require a prohibitive tax. Fully automatic weapons are further forced into a three tiered classification system which artificially distorts their value (registered pre-68, post 68, or contraband). Having access to martial arms is the primary purpose of the 2n Article of the Bill of Rights. Fully automatic firearms as well as short barreled long guns are being used by the military & police & therefore should not be prohibited or restricted for civilian use. Sound suppressors are one of the most useful user-safety devices ever made for a firearm & should be encouraged, not prohibitively taxed. A straight repeal of the NFA would not only benefit the physical health of those who practice with firearms but it would benefit the moral health of the nation as people were not deemed untrustworthy to own the very weapons the government supplies its agents with.
Legally this would be a push over if we could find a string of honest judges from the circuit level to SCOTUS. Sadly this is not usually the case so legislative means would probably be our best bet. Not ideal because a legislature can re-enact a law as easily as it repeals it whereas a court decision would nullify that law until another court disagreed. The judicial route would be harder to travel but much harder to backslide on if we're successful.
Public opinion would be perhaps the hardest part. Hell, even us gun nuts go to great lengths to differentiate between "assault weapons" & machineguns. The average Joe might be convinced that semi-auto's aren't bad but may still think that full auto's are evil. This is where PR comes into play.
What we have to do is fight umpteen years of government school indoctrination reinforced by the MSM. We can do this by asking a very simple question, "Why does the soldier have a firearm that the citizen cannot possess?" Now it's not entirely true that citizens cannot possess the same arms that the military issues, but it is true if said firearm was made after 1986. & there's a great burden placed on the citizen in order to possess a pre-86 machinegun.
Now if those people you ask the question to try to say that there's a difference between military & civilian needs ask them what exactly that is. Fighting wars? A citizen may be called to do just that. But perhaps a better example would be that in house to house fighting the soldier has fully automatic firearms at his disposal, yet we're limited to semi-automatics for defending our home against unlawful invasion. If it's effective for the military then why isn't it effective for the citizen? If they counter with a machinegun being too dangerous then ask why it's not too dangerous for a soldier. After all soldiers operate with other soldiers around them & sometimes in front of them so if a fully automatic firearm was too dangerous because it'd hurt innocent bystanders then why arm a soldier with one when he could hit his companions?
It can be argued. It won't be easy. & it doesn't get easier the longer we wait.
The short barreled long guns position should be a little easier since police are the most prolific users of said implements. Bringing up the market for short barreled shotguns among shop keepers & such prior to 1934 will help illustrate their usefulness as defensive arms. But to sure to include a brief summary on short barreled shotguns not spraying an entire room with shot. They're actually weaker than a longer barreled shotgun & the pattern wouldn't open up much more than a longer barreled gun inside of 15 yards.
Sound suppressors should be easiest since they provide a noticeable benefit to the shooter - they reduce the onset of hearing damage. The idea that they'll be used in untraceable murders is absurd since anyone wanting to commit such an act silently can improvise one, buy one illegally or use a knife.
Another point to make: trying substituting the term "automatic" whenever you would say "machinegun". "Automatic" sounds less intimidating. The anti's have been kicking our ass at the war of words & this is something we should start counter-attacking on.
PR is expensive. Or at least it was. If Rathergate had happened in 1994 any idea how much it'd have taken to make the public aware of it? Now it's relatively cheap. Now we can gain equal footing with the anti's in terms of reaching people. But we shouldn't neglect the MSM. It still has a broader reach than the internet though not as persuasive a one as it used to have. We still need to write letters to the editor & e-mail individual reporters when they get the facts or conclusions wrong. Be polite & concise.
But by reaching out to the public we'll make it a bit easier to force the legislature to do the right thing. It all revolves around the people though. Hence the need for secrecy in our plan is null. If we have to resort to lying to the people to accomplish our goals then we should give up. What we have to do is tell them the truth. We have to tell it often & we have to tell it forcefully. Don't start off any conversation with "I think...". If you know something to be true or false then state it directly.
For example:
"I think that more people each year are killed by cars than with guns" is not ideal.
"More people are killed as a result of car usage than firearm usage each year" is better.
Now some people will tell you that trying to convince the public is futile. Even if that were true what other recourse do we have? We’re a republic governed by a constitution. If we cannot convince the people that the government has stepped over its bounds then we need to be discussing exit strategy rather than tactics.
Other will tell you that we need to be playing defense. We've been playing defense for 70 years - where has that gotten us again? On the federal level we've gotten one pro-gun law passed (with a dreadfully anti-gun amendment tacked on) & one anti-gun law repealed (plus a few provisions of another anti-gun law). I'd say it's official: playing defense sucks. We'll talk about concealed carry laws another time. Now we're discussing the federal level & we're getting our asses kicked there. There have been 8 major federal gun control laws passed in the last 70 years. Our record is 6-1-1 on those (with one being repealed & one being an add on to a pro-gun bill). We've had one pro-gun bill passed & it was tainted. We have federal gun police (otherwise known as the ATFU). There have been several anti-gun executive orders (which carry the weight of law) & let's not even talk about how we've fared in the courts. We’ve been getting out ass kicked. If we were fighting for desegregation then we'd probably have slavery again. We've done that badly. Our accomplishments haven't been much to speak of at all. An AG who said he had to destroy purchase records which shouldn't be required in the first damn place. The same Ag saying it’s an individual Right that the government can trample on whenever it wishes. Let me repeat this: playing defense has gained us little if anything.
So we have t go on the offensive. This year. This month. Not the next. Now. Why now? Because it's too late to start 69 years ago.
We make an effort to repeal the NFA. We do so by talking up the disadvantages of said law & the benefits of its repeal. We hit the press with letters & e-mails & doubly so for the NRA. & of course we write our reps as often as possible asking how their part in the repeal is coming along. Even Boxer & DiFi.
Now this won't happen overnight (likely not for several years at the earliest) but it's important to start pushing for it & keep pushing for it until it happens. Here's why:
I think I may have mentioned that we've been getting our ass kicked playing defense. Think the anti's would fare any better? If they're on the defensive they can't be on the offensive (they'll have to settle for just being offensive). While they're fighting us on the NFA we can start moving in on an easier target: The GCA.
Look, most of the damned thing was taken from a Nazi gun control law. To hell with Godwin's law - we need to make that common knowledge. But if we stopped there that'd be an anti-gun lobby tactic. While pointing out its origins we also need to highlight that it amounts to little more than trade protectionism. The firearms industry wanted it to stop sales of surplus rifles through the mail - not because they feared criminal use but because they feared losing sales to mail order surplus outlets. Similarly the "sporting purposes' provision is a slap in the face to what the framers intended the 2nd amendment to acknowledge - that the people were to be the ultimate power both politically & physically.
I won't go too in depth but there are many good arguments to be made (from a principled as well as pragmatic view) for repealing the GCA. Same strategy as with the NFA - hit the press, the NRA & your congresscritters while doing whatever else you can to educate the people.
We're not through yet. A two pronged attack is good but a three pronged one can be better (albeit trickier to pull off). We go after the Brady law. Look, it requires you to receive government permission to buy an item you're supposed to be constitutionally acknowledged as having a Right to possess. In addition it sets the mechanism for a central registration of firearms owners - not at all different than those used to disarm many a victim of genocide. The feds could shut down all firearms sales nationwide simply by flipping a switch (& it's speculated they have before; this occurred a few years back when they switched the forms required for a purchase but didn't distribute them in a timely manner. Short version is the old forms couldn't be used & the new ones couldn't be faxed or printed. No guns were sold in the U.S. for at least 24 hours). Not to mention the database they use is not entirely accurate.
So we push hard for repealing the NFA, GCA & Brady law. Our main focus will be on the GCA but we'll press any advantage we can get with the NFA or Brady law. We don't BS until we get all three knocked off the books. It'll require much effort & it won't happen overnight but the alternative is to go back to playing defense while getting our asses soundly kicked.
Of course I'm open to any comments. In fact I insist on them (not that the insistence of a blogger has that much weight, but play along will ya?)
So if you have a better idea for dealing with federal gun control then now would be the time to speak up. If you don't have a better idea but can think of a better way to go about it then don't be bashful. If you wish you're welcome to e-mail me at publicola_mu@yahoo DOT com (replace the DOT with .) or look me up on yahoo messenger (publicola_mu is my i.d.).
Posted by Publicola at March 16, 2005 06:08 AMWell I pretty much agree but while we have no plan, and the gun controllers do, we have made significant progress. The AWB is gone, at least for now, and more states allow CCW.
Not the ideal situation but we are doing better than they are, and they're organized and have media on their side.
Posted by: Adam Lawson at March 16, 2005 12:24 PMA friend and I were just discussing this article on IM, and I hit the Biden interview (I think via Instapundit)
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050321fa_fact.
What jumped out at me - as shockingly obvious - but oblivious to the writer, and Biden... was this last paragraph.
"Kerry, Biden said, would tell voters that he would “fight terror as hard as Bush,” but then he would add, “and I’ll help you economically.” “What is Bush saying?” Biden said. “Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror. I would say to John, ‘Let me put it to you this way. The Lord Almighty, or Allah, whoever, if he came to every kitchen table in America and said, “Look, I have a Faustian bargain for you, you choose. I will guarantee to you that I will end all terror threats against the United States within the year, but in return for that there will be no help for education, no help for Social Security, no help for health care.” What do you do?’
“My answer,” Biden said, “is that seventy-five per cent of the American people would buy that bargain.”
I read that.. and said... "Wait. Something's wrong there.".
I IMed my friend, and pointed out that wait a minute. Education (I presume of my kids)...my problem. Why is it presumed that the "State" will take care of that? Gee, we've increased Public Education spending by how much, and how bad have things gotten?
Social Security - My problem. Hell, I'm just considering my 13% to be lost. Ought to claim it as a capital loss on my taxes. It won't be there when I retire - I'm making other plans, as anybody with any sense is doing.
Health Care- PLEASE DON'T TRY AND HELP ME THERE.
The current "health care mess" is a almagation of several things - increased cost (because we can treat more and more!), but more importantly - attempts to "lower" that cost by hiring managers and accountants.
So out of that faustian bargain, what's left?
Stopping terrorists.
Gee. Isn't THAT the *real* job that the Federal Executive is _supposed_ to be doing? At least, in theory?
So yes, I'd take that bargain in a heartbeat... and Biden - and the writer - don't understand why.
Sadly, this is going to factor into this argument, more and more. How many people would read that, and say "Well, of COURSE, because that's the ONLY ISSUE that the Feds REALLY SHOULD BE DEALING WITH?"
People are USED to the concept of guns=icky. Only "Trained professionals" (read, government) should have them. Of course, until THEY need one.
In order to get the 2nd healthy again, we've got to not JUST argue guns. We've really got to make a push for a change in paragdigm... and it's not going to be easy.
Posted by: Addison at March 16, 2005 02:25 PMNice!
I have one suggestion though. You wrote: "Why does the soldier have a firearm that the citizen cannot possess?" yet in your expansion of that theme you treated soldiers and police as nearly the same thing. I suggest a better defined line between them.
Why? Because soldiers are a separate class, fighting our nation's enemies on foreign soil and should be able to use cruise missiles, 5000 lb fuel-air bombs, and nukes if the mission calls for it. I suffer a severe case of NIMBY syndrome when it comes to my gap-toothed meth-head neighbor having nukes. Hell, its bad enough when his basement meth lab explodes and the resulting house fire melts all the new siding on that side of my house. I don't want to deal with what-ifs when his basement backpack-nuke lab explodes and takes out 127 city blocks. Private ownership of WMD is the logical extension of advocating citizen ownership of military arms, and it is utterly unsellable to the gun-owning public, let alone the gun-fearing public.
I think it would be a better argument if you were comparing police weapons rather than soldier's weapons. If you ask "Why does the police officer have a firearm that other citizens cannot possess?" you are comparing the 2 classes (both citizens) most likely to be in conflict when the statist gun confiscation begins. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, the police (and alphabet agencies) rather than the military, is the standing army referred to and feared by our forefathers. And if you stick to using the police in your comarison, you deprive the gun bigots of the "Publicola advocates junkies owning NUKES!" sound bite (at least until the police start using nukes). "...junkies owning MACHINE GUNS!" is going to be a hard enough sell, thank you.
Posted by: Konall at March 16, 2005 03:38 PMFred of Fred's M14 Stocks in Shotgun News calls the political offensive "the soft war". There is no reason why the above can not/should not be a/the plan for the soft war. Thing is -- how do we get people -- gunowners and shooters, no less -- to get up off the couch and work (call, write, electioneer) to get this or any other plan implemented?
Only thing I can come up with is to start locally -- like really locally -- like can your spouse make a call or write? Will she/he agree to do so on an ongoing basis? If so, you have doubled your effective strength.
Any kids of voting age or near? Will they do so? On an ongoing basis? Yes? Good. Effective strength now > 2X.
Now the parents -- both you and your spouse. Any of 'em willing to work on an ongoing basis? More X's.
Etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: cabinboy at March 16, 2005 06:06 PMI'm with you. Konall does have an excellent point....stay with the 'police' comparison instead of jumping to the 'military' level. I've had the "you think everyone should have an atom bomb" arguement thrown at me before, and it's quite hard to overcome.
There is another direction we need to take: reversing the government education philosophy that guns are bad. Arizona is trying - take a look at this:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1271
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 15-714.01; RELATING TO SCHOOL CURRICULUM.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 15, chapter 7, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 15-714.01, to read:
15-714.01. Arizona gun safety program course
A. IN ADDITION TO THE VOLUNTARY TRAINING IN THE USE OF BOWS AND FIREARMS PRESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 15-713 AND 15-714, EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CHARTER SCHOOL MAY OFFER AS AN ELECTIVE COURSE A ONE-SEMESTER COURSE IN FIREARM MARKSMANSHIP THAT SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS THE ARIZONA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM COURSE.
B. A PUPIL SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED THE ARIZONA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM COURSE BY DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PUPIL HAS THE ABILITY TO SAFELY DISCHARGE A FIREARM.
C. THE COURSE OF INSTRUCTION PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE JOINTLY DEVELOPED BY THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND PRIVATE FIREARMS ORGANIZATIONS AND MAY INCLUDE MATERIALS PROVIDED BY PRIVATE YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. AT A MINIMUM, THE ARIZONA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM COURSE SHALL INCLUDE:
1. INSTRUCTION ON THE RULES OF GUN SAFETY.
2. INSTRUCTION ON THE BASIC OPERATION OF FIREARMS.
3. INSTRUCTION ON THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS AND MARKSMANSHIP.
4. INSTRUCTION ON THE ROLE OF FIREARMS IN PRESERVING PEACE AND FREEDOM.
5. INSTRUCTION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROOTS OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
6. INSTRUCTION ON THE USE OF CLAY TARGETS.
7. PRACTICE TIME AT A SHOOTING RANGE.
8. DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCE WITH A FIREARM.
D. SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS SHALL ARRANGE FOR ADEQUATE USE OF SHOOTING RANGE TIME BY PUPILS IN THE ARIZONA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM COURSE AT ANY ESTABLISHED SHOOTING RANGE.
E. PUPILS WHO SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE THE ARIZONA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM COURSE SHALL RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT.
F. INSTRUCTORS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.
G. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT OR EXPAND THE LIABILITY OF ANY PERSON UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.
I agree that we must develop a plan and do something about it NOW, but we need to realize that there are adults out there that we simply will not be able to reach. Go for the schools, the Boy Scouts, 4H, any youth group you can find. Kids are much easier to work with and they have a surprising amount of influence on their parents.
I'm sure this will get me in hot water for advocating "using" children for our purposes, so let me say this: I have never met a kid who didn't enjoy shooting. I don't see it so much as "using" the children, I see it as allowing the children to make an informed choice.
I'm rambling.....I'll blog more about this later. Thanks for starting the ball rolling!
Len
You're so right about the need to go on the offensive. How many of us have martial arts training? Is it better to let the opponent control the fight and react to him or vice-versa?
Posted by: John D. at March 17, 2005 01:06 PMWow, Where to start.
O.K. I agree with the issue, and the need to organize. But like any battle plan, there must be multple facets to the attack. Political, Legislative (yes, they are differant), PR, and lets not forget legal. Has anybody ever thought about finding an "injured party"? By this, I mean someone who has been denied or stripped of thier constitutional rights to "bear arms", "due process" or "equal protection"? Once we find one of "those" cases, we ALL contribute $20 to the fund to defend and then RESTORE that persons rights. Think about it. Get some of those high dollar attack dog lawyers really working for US!
This angle needs some serious attention NOW! Case law and precident (spelling?) are just as important as legislation and Judicial review. Once we win one of those fights, we find another, and another, and another until the weight of case law makes the rest of the battle easier and more attainable. By the way, the NRA might do more if they really felt like the gun nut community would support them......We are after all just like everyone else. A change in political wind, and many of us change our minds or stop supporting a candidate. Lets just say that Howard Dean was the "Gun Guy Candidate" and really was going to fight for everything we want, then he does that YEEEAAAHHH thing.......Nuf said....
P.S. Military guys should understand this, Machineguns are nearly useless in a fire fight. I know very few soldiers or marines who prefer to fire his weapon on full auto. Most are happy to just get a good sight picture on thier target long enough to hit it. I can say from personal experience that aimed fire is vastly superior. Just ask the Gomers I left behind who watched too many shoot from the hip on full auto movies. Calm mind, sharp eye, attention to detail, and good drill and training. I would take a group of Pashtuns armed with Enfield rifles over a bunch of AK wielding idiots any day.
My two cents....
Posted by: Chris at March 17, 2005 04:59 PMHey Len,
Maybe if more parents would teach thier kids about firearms et. al. ad. nauseum. We would not have as many idiots running around and commiting gun crimes. I do not think that your suggestion constitutes "Using children", I think it makes perfect sense. Take an evening to watch (or re-watch) Mel Gibson's The Patriot. The scene where he and his two YOUNG sons attack a formation of British Soldiers in order to save the eldest son from a certain execution. Gibsons character tells his YOUNG sons to remember what he told them; "Aim small, Miss small". I interpret that to mean "Aim Center Mass".......
Children must learn about these things. Only then can they make informed choices. My children are all learning, they have a very healthy respect for firearms. I am certain that my eldest daughter will never own a gun. But she will be able to operate and maintain just about any gun in the world. She does great work on trigger jobs, and has helped me with 5 AR and AK projects.
God Bless....
Posted by: Chris at March 17, 2005 05:10 PMAnother Tack to take is to remove the legal and moral high ground of the gun grabbers. Many work places now stipulate that employees may not have guns on the premises, and they may not have them in their vehicles as well.
We need to be looking for cases where people with CCW permit carriers are harmed by these anti-gun policies and supporting the cases and suites brought up. It's a tactic often employed by the left, look for supportive cases to change laws you don`t like.
Rules like these never seem to prevent that disgruntled worker from returning with the firepower they need to teach everyone a lesson. It just makes everyone in the work place a victim.
Posted by: DJ at March 18, 2005 02:41 PMUnfortunately, unless and until some very good folks are willing to take the very real risks involved in breaking some of these unconstitutional and immoral laws, get arrested, go to trial and establish some sound case law and good precedents, we'll be fighting a tough battle to get to where we want, should and must be. I can't think of a soul who has the time or resources or the faith in our courts or the spine for that matter to take on those risks. Any volunteers? You have my solemn word of honor that I will pledge a minimum of $3000 USD to assist in your defense for a good, solid case that would start to reverse the tide. That's the best that I can do/afford right now. Anyone else out there willing to help? Doesn't it seem rather odd that in the 70 or so years since the NFA was enacted that the NRA, et al couldn't seem to find a single case to help reverse all of this nonsense? I think that it's pretty incredible. How many millions (billions?) have we given them over all of these years? Any ideas anyone, I'm all ears and eyes. What if a few hundred of us at a time started publicly challenging these laws in a peaceful and non-violent way and started jamming up the courts in large numbers? Morality and logic are on our side. You might ask about what happened to the Bonus Army in DC back during the Depression, not a pleasant thought and a very real possibility. I sure don't want any foolish martyrdom or any needless bloodshed but someone on our side ought to be able to figure something out that will settle all this bunk once and for all so that we can all move on to better and more productive things with our lives and put this behind us without getting anyone killed. How many arrests? How many cases? How many millions of dollars will it take for a concerted effort? Let's do the math. Do you think that a million of us at a thousand buck a head could put up a billion dollar fight that Brady and the MMM's and all of their buddies on the Hill could match. We wouldn't have to fire a single shot. But we'd need good leadership and damned good lawyers. Again, any thoughts?
Posted by: Greg Lyons at March 18, 2005 10:38 PMI'd also like to see the NFA revoked, but as you say, it doesn't seem likely to succeed other than to help smaller bills succeed. Here's a couple of other ideas that could be other prongs of the attack and might be easier to get passed.
1) Exemptions from Hughes Amendment for models of NFA firearm that were available under NFA for at least 10 years prior to Hughes (1986) and no NFA-registered example of the model was never used in a violent crime. Hard to argue that it's criminal's weapon of choice.
2) Legalize assault weapons: semi, full, and selective fire weapons fitting the provisions of the 1994 AWB are freed of NFA and GCA provisions. It might be hard for the other side to fight this without revealing something about how regulated they are currently.
1) NFA registration period expires after 10 years of no crimes; all records of the individual's NFA guns, application, and background check must be destroyed.
Posted by: CharlesH at March 19, 2005 02:41 PMOops, posted that in a hurry; that's why it's 1 2 1 instead of 1 2 3.
Posted by: CharlesH at March 20, 2005 05:49 AMThing is -- how do we get people -- gunowners and shooters, no less -- to get up off the couch and work (call, write, electioneer) to get this or any other plan implemented?
I'm under the impression that the little pre-labeled cards GOA sends out get reasonable results. (Maybe I'm mistaken?) That seems like the way to go, unlike the NRA which sends out these vague "contact your legislator about H.B. 42124134 and tell them you don't like it!" I stamp and sign GOA cards that I havn't even read. :)
Somebody could get together with GOA, JPFO, CCRKA, SAS, SAF, all the hard core state shooting organizations, etc and say "hey, either let us buy your mailing list for purposes of supporting gun rights, or let us PAY YOU to send out these cards demanding the repeal of stupid gun law here"
And just keep pounding the national legislators with that (in fact, have them sent to governors and local legislative types, too). Even the ones like Feinstein. They come to the office on monday morning and find they've got two bags full of cards telling them to let everyone have machine guns, and they'll be really happy to find out that the other twenty bags of mail are only telling them to get rid of background checks.
Send big bloggers and columnists information packets, and make free press releases to correspond with the arrival of the cards in the D.C. offices. Include with the cards sample letters to the editor that people can modify/send in. Send out flyers to gun stores/ranges/hunting outfitters around the country that they can post.
Have someone call Marilyn Musgrave and tell her to get her little Second Amendment Caucus tea party off its ass and introduce some legislation that repeals something.
And try to arrange somebody who shows up on national TV to call Sarah Brady a baby killer. (ok, maybe that isn't strictly necessary, but it'd make me laugh, and what more can a guy ask for?)
Do them in waves, maybe three weeks apart. That'll give the last one time to die down a bit.
While I'm thinking about it, is there any reason why a campaign like that couldn't send cards to Supreme Court Justices and federal court judges? Something like "I feel strongly about US v. Miller, and I'd like you to make sure you understand it thoroughly before next ruling on firearms-related cases. Thus please make sure you've reviewed the documents recently supplied to your office by the yadda yadda Foundation."?
(Ok, that was all off the top of my head. Hopefully it was reasonable, if not, sorry. At least you didn't pay to read it.)
Posted by: Jay Kominek at March 26, 2005 10:32 PMA move in the right direction....SB1271 has passed the Arizona legislature. (See my earlier comment here and my blog for more) People in other states please take notice! Our schools have been in the hands of the loony left for way too long. Programs like this are a fantastic way to present "the other side of the story" to the students.
Posted by: Len at April 6, 2005 11:27 PM