Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?  (Read 6501 times)

atomicferret

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Chaotic Good

  • Offline
A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
« on: October 25, 2008, 02:56:02 am »
Suppose that everything goes terribly wrong in a couple of weeks.  During the next session of congress an AW ban is introduced and passed.  It is then signed into law by the Socialist. 

Would it be possible to get ALL of the US manufacturers to pull a Ronnie Barrett and tell the US GOV to shove it.  No more sales to the military nor any PD.  No parts, NOTHING.  The .GOV tried to put them out of business by passing such a stupid law, turn-about is fair play.

I know that such policies would affect the fine men and women in those organizations, it is not their fault that congress could be so stupid.  But millions of Americans are affected by these bans.   Once the bans are repealed then guns can start flowing again. 

What do you think?  Is it possible?
I know that violence isn't the answer, but I like to show my work and it IS part of the solution.

Listen up, you primitive screw-heads.....

...authorities pursuing criminal suspects "may not be in the most sensitive or compassionate mode."

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Outbreak

    • NRA Basic Pistol Instructor, Certified Sig P-Series Armorer
    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 11465
    • Outbreak Monkey ^

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #1 on: October 25, 2008, 03:39:45 am »
    Possible? Of course. Anything is possible.

    Likely? Anything but.
    TexasOutbreak

    I take my coffee black...like my rifles.

    I absolutely despise Glocks. That's why I only own two.

    I'm glad that your chains rest lightly upon you. --JesseL

    Brian Dale

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 253

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #2 on: October 25, 2008, 05:44:37 am »
    Smith & Wesson showed us during the Clinton years that not all gun company executives are cut from the same cloth as Ronnie Barrett. Colt's, Bill Ruger...
    ...but it's fun to think that there'd be a reaction like that to such an event.
    One great frailty of human nature, an inability or indisposition to compare a distant, though certain inconvenience or distress with a present convenience or delight is said...to be prevalent in Americans so as to make it one of their distinguishing charac

    Skunk Ape

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 349

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #3 on: October 25, 2008, 09:03:48 am »
    The big defense players like FN or Colt would not participate.  Without military and government sales they would have no bottom line.  And forget about Glock participating.  Ruger will sell you out in  a heartbeat.  S&W might have learned not to sup with the Devil from their experiences a few years back, but I wouldn't count on it.
    Get these bodies together...five or six of 'em, all laid out on the front of our ship. Put Book front and center, he's our friend and we should honor him. Kaylee, find that kid who's taking a dirt nap with baby Jesus, we need a hood ornament.

    CZ9mm

    • Junior Member
    • *
    • Posts: 83

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #4 on: October 25, 2008, 10:03:22 am »
    There would always be that money hungry company willing to jump at the fact that their peers are sitting on the sidelines while the ball is out the all by itself, ready to be taken in for the score. ::)
    Christian Zone Forum
    Relaxing. Rewarding. Reviving.
    All are welcome! Accepting members AND staff.
    http://www.christianzoneforum.com

    NRA Recruiter-Ask me about joining or renewing your NRA membership today!

    armoredman

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 591

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #5 on: October 25, 2008, 10:31:45 am »
    The only way the big boys won't play is if they mandate microstamping, like Cali did. SiG, Glock, and Smith ALL told Cali that they would pull out of the entire Cali market if they passed that law, which they did. CZ has said they will pull out of Cali, too, too expensive to do the stamping garbage.
    If the dyed in the wool sheeple LIEberals craft the law, like Cali, there will be no loophole for LE and mililtary, (AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE!), then you can see some major players going more forthe international market. If the intelligent gun banner/socialsts craft the law with a loophole, then they may stay in the game.

    Bo Smith

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3013
    • NOT a Sheepdog
      • Behold, my blog.

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #6 on: October 25, 2008, 10:33:14 am »
    If recent politics has taught us anything, it's that our government isn't afraid to go abroad to get what it needs. That's globalism. A semiautomatic ban might shut down factories here; and some enterprising souls may retool and start making remote-controlled airplanes, as an example. There are plenty of factories in Eastern Europe ready and willing to supply any military, in the wake of such a ban.

    My advice is to plan on having all you're ever going to need, in the event of a Nobama presidency and a filibuster-proof senate. It certainly is cause for deep introspection.  
    'Civilization' is a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness. -Werner Herzog

    Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did make up global warming.

    http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #7 on: October 25, 2008, 10:44:40 am »
    Plus, FN and Colt are contractually obligated to make weapons for the military.  Refusing to do so (in a time of war, no less) would be a series of lawsuits (that they wouldn't win) waiting to happen.

    Now, I think it's possible (in some states, at least) to get a state exemption to a Federal ban.  I mean, let's say Montana passes a law that says it's not going to enforce a Federal AW ban, and that said "assault weapons" are legal for sale in Montana, but only to Montana residents.  The feds would stop and huff and threaten to pull their highway money, but that's about it.  Why not?  California and other states get away with "Sanctuary Cities" and decriminalized marijuana, among other things, regardless of what Washington wants.

    The sad thing about a federal AW ban is that a lot of gun companies that don't have big government contracts will go under.  I mean, Springfield Armory will probably still be able to market the M1A.  My favorite gun company, DSA, offers a California-legal, stripper-clip fed FAL.  But there isn't any neutering an AR-15, unless you want to crack the weapon open to recharge the fixed magazine.  A lot of smaller AR-15 manufactuers will go out of business in a hurry, most likely.

    If and when another ban gets passed, the worst thing we can do, as gun owners, is roll over and give up.  We have the Heller decision; the NRA could challege it in court.  Congress swings back and forth, left-to-right, over the decades.  The harder it swings in one direction, the harder it usually swings back. (The turmoil of the 1960s and national clinical depression of the 1970s gave us the Regan Era, for instance.)  It's tough, and rare, but Federal laws can be repealed.  States can pass their own laws.

    Worse comes to worse, the Garand is still one hell of a good fighting rifle.  But let's not bemoan our fate and throw in the sponge before we even get there.  It's like a lot of people thought, in 2004, with Bush getting re-elected, the Republicans retaining Congress, and the 1994 ban expiring, that the RKBA fight was over or something.

    It's never over, folks.  Freedom isn't free, as they say.
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    Ishpeck

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1467
      • The Ishpeckian Network

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #8 on: October 25, 2008, 10:50:54 am »
    The turmoil of the 1960s and national clinical depression of the 1970s gave us the Regan Era, for instance.

    And the Reagan era gave us the BATFE!  BRILLIANT!
    Ishpeck's Law: As United States political discourse grows longer, the probability of Ronald Reagan being used as a justification for one's argument approaches one.
    http://www.ishpeck.net/

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #9 on: October 25, 2008, 10:57:01 am »
    Um, the ATF was founded in 1972.  BRILLIANT!

    Its morphing into the "ATF" was a direct result of the passage of the Gun Contol Act of 1968.  Congress used the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it (as they do with almost everything).

    « Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 11:00:42 am by NC »
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    Bo Smith

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3013
    • NOT a Sheepdog
      • Behold, my blog.

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #10 on: October 25, 2008, 11:06:49 am »
    The Reagan administration gave us the machine gun ban

    The problem with the swinging pendulum is that gunowners really never get ahead. The 1994 AWB expired, but we didn't really get ahead. We still live under the import ban, the machine gun ban, GCA '68, and NFA '34. I'll change my mind about this "pendulum" when it actually starts to swing in our favor. Some may tout concealed carry laws as a victory to gunowners. I say that if concealed carry were such a victory, it would be Vermont-style, and that concealed carry laws as so written amount to backdoor gun registration (by registering the owner). It may yet prove unwise to put so much faith in such a scheme. Heller may or may not work out for us, since it too provides for the legality of registration (which has historically led to confiscation).

    There was a brief window, when the GOP held the White House and both chambers of congress, when we could have pushed and fought as hard as Brady does for the other side. Instead, we turned the ball over on downs, and the other side gets a turn. The cynic in me wonders how many in the GOP are really on our side, or if they fear a "well-regulated" citizenry as the socialist-left.
    'Civilization' is a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness. -Werner Herzog

    Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did make up global warming.

    http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

    Nightcrawler

    • WTA Secretary of Defense
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6280
    • That's what SHE said!

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #11 on: October 25, 2008, 11:18:25 am »
    How hard did we, as gun owners, hammer Congress during the last eight years for positive change for gun owners?

    How many went to sleep and didn't worry about it, because "our side" was in charge?

    Gun ownership isn't a left-right issue.  Not really.  That's why the swinging pendulum never really works out that well for us.  There are plenty of Republicans that'd be on board with a gun ban, and plenty more that'd be on board if they thought it'd get them re-elected.

    Gun ownership is a civil rights issue and we need to treat it as such.  Pity we can't seem to get organized like the civil rights movement did.  Everytime there's a Republican in charge, half of gun owners stop paying attention.  The other half never pay attention in the first place, because "they'll never come for my hunting rifle".  Feh.  We're our own worst enemy sometimes.

    It's not right.  It's not fair.  But it is what it is.

    As for concealed carry...I have a friend that would've been raped and murdered had she not been carrying a gun.  I'm gonna have to go ahead and call that one a win, even if she needed to get a state-issued permit first.

    But since you mention Vermont...the fact that a place like Vermont, that elected a genuine, self-described Socialist to the Senate, has "Vermont Carry" (and that it hasn't been legislated away) should give us pause.  This is the sort of thing that can be accomplished at the state and local level.  Alaska adopted no-permit carry.  With enough time and effort, other States might be able to also.

    Things don't look good.  I didn't mean imply that they did.  The whole world's going insane, and God only knows where we'll end up.  Still, we have two options: keep fighting or give up.
    ArizonaMOLON LABE

    Retired Bomb Guy
    Semi-Pro Hack Writer

    armoredman

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 591

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #12 on: October 25, 2008, 11:45:49 am »

    Skunk Ape

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 349

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #13 on: October 25, 2008, 07:04:52 pm »
    The Reagan administration gave us the machine gun ban

    Not exactly.  The "machinegun ban" resulted from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).  NFA did not expressly ban automatic weapons but it did impose a punitive tax of $200 (this was during the Great Depression!) and require that the weapons be registered with a tax stamp.

    The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 did several things.  Among others it established a "traveling clause" that exempted citizens from local gun ordinances if they were simply passing through.  Let's say your flight got diverted to Chicago and you had a rifle in checked baggage.  Prior to FOPA '86 you could be prosecuted for having an unregistered weapon in Chicago.

    What got amended to the FOPA '86 at the last minute was a freeze on adding new automatic weapons to the NFA registry.  This effectively froze the supply at whatever was transferable as of 1986.  That's the main reason that a fully automatic weapon is likely to set you back thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawfully purchase it.  Now, criminals will not pay anywhere near that amount but let's not let reality get in the law of intentions.
    Get these bodies together...five or six of 'em, all laid out on the front of our ship. Put Book front and center, he's our friend and we should honor him. Kaylee, find that kid who's taking a dirt nap with baby Jesus, we need a hood ornament.

    ZeroTA

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2969
    • Minister of Random Punishments

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #14 on: October 25, 2008, 10:36:24 pm »


    Would it be possible to get ALL of the US manufacturers to pull a Ronnie Barrett and tell the US GOV to shove it....What do you think?  Is it possible?
    It's possible,but not very realistic. Just like it's possible that everybody decides not to pay their property taxes anymore. It'd be nice,but it just ain't in the cards.
    I'm not saying you should use an M1A for home defense, but I'm also not saying you shouldn't.

    Klassh

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 149
    • Pew Pew!
      • Working Class Reader

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #15 on: October 26, 2008, 11:32:57 am »
    Kimber is in New York.
    DS Arms is in Illinois.
    Springfield is in Illinois.
    Detonics is in Illinois.
    Rock River Arms is in Illinois.
    Smith&Wesson is in Massachussets.

    Who else am I missing?  And let me know if I'm correct, I'm going by there 'Contact' mailing address.

    DPMS(MN), Bushmaster(ME), Colt(CT), Ruger(NH?),

    I say Colt jokingly of course.  Colt has been trying for years to become a Government dealer only. Besides, a lot of gun companies offer a far better product than Colt now anyways.


    Why are most gun makers located in deep anti-gun territory?
    ~Klassh.
    My Blog - WorkingClassReader.com
    For those in the trenches of responsibility.

    New Blog Up! 10/16
    "On Friday - I killed my coworker."

    Bo Smith

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3013
    • NOT a Sheepdog
      • Behold, my blog.

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #16 on: October 26, 2008, 12:11:39 pm »
    I think weapons manufacturers are where they are because that's where the people are. It takes a huge infrastructure and labor pool to operate a large concern like that, I imagine. It might be prohibitively expensive to run a large firearms factory in rural South Dakota, compared to the old manufacturing centers in the Northeast.
    'Civilization' is a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness. -Werner Herzog

    Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did make up global warming.

    http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

    GNLaFrance

    • Junior Member
    • *
    • Posts: 9
    • Image struck by Robert Szabo at Ft. Washington, MD

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #17 on: October 26, 2008, 06:23:58 pm »
    The old, established firearms factories are in the Northeast because the entrepreneurs who set them up were, for the most part, Yankees, and back then the only places in the South with the infrastructure to support factories were Richmond, Baltimore and maybe Vicksburg. But mainly they weren't interested in the first place. The South was an agrarian society with an agricultural economy based on slave labor. Building factories wasn't part of the plan. That's why, when the War of the Rebellion began in 1861, there were more factories in the State of New York alone than in the entire South.
    Guy N. LaFrance
    NRA, MSI, NCOWS, GAF

    Day By Day Webcomic by Chris Muir

    Ishpeck

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1467
      • The Ishpeckian Network

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #18 on: October 27, 2008, 08:31:03 am »
    Kimber is in New York.
    DS Arms is in Illinois.
    Springfield is in Illinois.
    Detonics is in Illinois.
    Rock River Arms is in Illinois.
    Smith&Wesson is in Massachussets.

    Who else am I missing? 

    Kahr is in Massachusetts if I'm not mistaken.

    Henry is in New Jersey.

    I say Colt jokingly of course.  Colt has been trying for years to become a Government dealer only. Besides, a lot of gun companies offer a far better product than Colt now anyways.

    Typical.  You work for the government, you slide behind in quality.  S'how it goes.
    « Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 08:36:13 am by Ishpeck »
    Ishpeck's Law: As United States political discourse grows longer, the probability of Ronald Reagan being used as a justification for one's argument approaches one.
    http://www.ishpeck.net/

    LittleLebowski

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3379

    • Offline
    Re: A possible, yet painful solution to a new AW ban?
    « Reply #19 on: October 27, 2008, 09:47:02 am »
      This won't happen.  They will do what they can to maintain their existence. 

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.