Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« The morning after | Main | Suit against Washington state »

Morning after, part two

Posted by David Hardy · 5 November 2008 09:23 AM

The Washington Post has thoughts about Obama's first moves. They figure he's got to do enough to suggest "change" without doing so much that he comes off as a lefty, or loses the blue dogs, or sets the stage for another 1996, and list a number of ideas. Guns don't make the list; the priorities are mostly economic.

10 Comments | Leave a comment

scott | November 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply

Obama's priorities may not be guns, but he'll be a ready signer for whatever Congress gives him.

I predict and AW (much more restrictive than the 1st one) and high-capacity magazine ban, and a .50 caliber "sniper-rifle" ban in the first year.

Also, gun-show "loophole", at least to the point of requireing FBI background checks for all sales made at gun-shows, and potentially regulations that would pretty much force gun-shows out of business.

Pelosi and Reid will have no trouble moving those by themselves. Obama will simply sign it claiming all the while that they are "reasonable" restrictions and that he supports the 2A.

Marcus Poulin | November 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply

Don't be so sure.

They have had both Houses
of Congress since January
20, 2007.

And the last time Feinstein tried
to renew it with a rider in 2005 or
so it got voted down by like 80 against.

Steve W. | November 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply

It's possible washpo figures the gun laws Obama promised on his website -- AWB, Gun Show, "child proof" guns (maybe with some kind of special locking slide you have to pull back while pushing down) are just gimme's given the current leadership.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/

Hopefully we can block them, or at least do a major turnaround in 2010.

CDR D | November 5, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply

>>>...or sets the stage for another 1996...


You meant "1994"? Right?

Brad | November 5, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply

Does anyone know the what the new ideological balance of the Congress is concerning gun issues? Has the House actually swung to majority anti-gun with the new Democratic majority?

The last time the Democrats tried to renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons" in 2004 the main roadblock was the House of Representatives.

Tom | November 6, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply

They're NOT going to advertise it. It will be passed by stealth unless we're on them 24x7x365 hidden among piles of "boring" stuff.

JCR | November 6, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply

Don't we have to assume that the Tiahrt amendment will be killed?

It is complicated enough that it is always mis-represented as reasonable and necessary for law enforcment.

The quick retort to is should always be: "The ATF has all this info that you want, are you saying that the ATF is not doing their job?"

Paul W | November 6, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply

To get any legislation through, it has to pass the Senate. If the Republicans can filibuster, they can shut down ANYTHING. I'm sure that there must be a couple of reasonably pro-gun (or at least afraid to be anti-gun) southern Dem senators to counter-balance the softee Republicans.

They ALL have to be watched closely by gun owners - Obama, the Schumer-Feinstein-Pelosi-McCarthy crowd, and the Republicans. We have to hold their feet to the fire.

Keep something else in mind - there are something like 80-90 million gun owners. If significant anti-gun legislation passes, how is Obama going to be a "uniter" if he signs it? Of course we know he's a liar - but at least we can expose these schemes and any hypocricy to the public eye.

Andy Freeman | November 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply

> If significant anti-gun legislation passes, how is Obama going to be a "uniter" if he signs it?

You don't understand. The "uniter" language comes from folks who spent the last 8 years fighting Bush. They think that winning means that everyone will go along with them now.

Marcus Poulin | November 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply

OH NO the Rahmantor lol

Rahm Emanuel lol

We are in trouble now.

A hard-edged Democrat.

This will be funny.

Leave a comment