Firearms Talk banner
21 - 40 of 88 Posts

·
Premium Member
G42 G43x P95DC CZ82 Mak CZ70 AR etc.
Joined
·
5,686 Posts
Me thinks their goal is to force FFL's out of business - especially those that aren't storefront types. We need to see a copy of the regulation as the press release isn't very complete. Regs on storage requirements to sell black powder in approved container forced many to abandon handling it - but there was no uproar, so many just stopped. When they figure out limiting access to ammo will be more effective than limiting access to firearms, we'll be in deep trouble. Stand by for a ram.
Correct on ammo John. They have already started in a BIG way with all Russian made ammo being banned as soon as our importers orders dry up. Which could be any day. We don't really know how far ahead our importers had orders in for.
People have just ignored this news we got last year.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,642 Posts
I don't see what the issue is, more money for the dealers sell a storage device with the firearm. From what i can see they just need to have the devices available in their stores if someone wants to buy one.
Doesn't make much difference if a grocer is forced to sell peaches year 'round, in a puny little "bodega" grocery down the street, all because of gov't nanny-state edicts. Those grocers that wish to supply peaches will do so. Those wanting year 'round supplies provided will do so. Those customers wanting peaches so desperately when few carry them will find peaches elsewhere (or an alternative to peaches that grocer might have selected).

Same with a shop with any sort of product. Particularly in this day and age of online-everything consumerism. Forcing shops to carry this or that product just extend the invasive "rule" of the bureaucrat functionaries, without much actual benefit.

The issue? The control, dictating terms for people living their lives. Criminals and the stupid won't be impacted by such edicts (ie, as with operating a car, or running a hair dryer while wet, or going outside when there's threat of lightning).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
I can’t remember being in a gun shop that didn’t have plenty of safes of all different sizes. One place I frequent has at least 30 to 40 large safes at any time not to mention the hundreds of small lock box types. If this is the worst they come up with Yawn.
The last place I would rob is a gun store. There are easier, less risky ways to get a gun. Like buying them legally.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
Federally paid employees are like missiles.

If they don't work, you can't fire them.
I live in a "government town". There are thousands upon thousands of govt. employees that literally don't work. They have benefits that are nothing less than great as well as a retirement that is nothing less than great. I know some of these people and I know a couple of them that actually quit their "jobs" because they have the moral fiber to be a productive individual by getting a real job. There are a few good people left.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Me thinks their goal is to force FFL's out of business - especially those that aren't storefront types. We need to see a copy of the regulation as the press release isn't very complete. Regs on storage requirements to sell black powder in approved container forced many to abandon handling it - but there was no uproar, so many just stopped. When they figure out limiting access to ammo will be more effective than limiting access to firearms, we'll be in deep trouble. Stand by for a ram.
And that is the game plan much of the time, make owning or purchasing them, ammo, or ancillary parts too expensive (that was the game plan for the GCA in '34 too...to make purchasing NFA items too expensive for the average person). Black powder is just one example (fortunately some smart people developed propellants that aren't classed as explosives), but also all ammo itself. CA is trying to make it mandatory that anyone purchasing ammo has to undergo a background check every time ammo is purchased and they want to tack on a hefty tax on top of the price too.

Another tactic, a la the "assault rifle" bans, is to dictate the type of firearms "they" allow you to have. They tell you, we aren't coming for your guns, you can still own and buy them (just not the ones "we" deem you can't have). The problem with that slippery slope is nothing will stop them down the road from adding more and more types to that list. We saw what happened in the assault bans, the industry removed certain criteria the government erroneously used to define "assault rifles", like bayonet lugs, etc, in order to get around the ban. If we let these politicians infringe our right further, that is how they will continue to infringe because industry will respond by working to meet their twisted rules, which then will cause them to infringe further. Just look at the pistol brace crap. For at least the last decade all the pistol braces on the market have been allowed according to the ATF, now, out of the blue, they submit a proposal for definition change and a new grading system this past year. If it goes into effect, 99.9% of all those previously legal braces will suddenly be illegal merely at the arbitrary stroke of a pen...and all without any legislation by our elected representatives, just the musings of some fed employee wanks that none us elected.

To extend that further, if we look at the onerous controls exerted by some states not allowing people to carry, or to use firearms in self defense (or making just gun ownership onerous and expensive), they then scream and cry about all the illegal guns and gun crimes. It's a vicious circle. They create a bastion of sheep and then use the criminals as the reason to infringe their rights even more. It's nuts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
Check out what the Mongols (Genghis Kahn and his armies) did with bows and arrows. All they did was conquer the world as it was then. Their bows were not just simple bows. They were short (for riding horses) but still had the power to kill very effectively. They were highly engineered killing tools that their children grew up with in their hands learning how to be effective killers.

So, maybe that would be an option. Silent, effective, can be homemade with good directions. Or, just use a simple knife. Or, just make a simple spear out of the vegetation in your yard. There is no end. It just evolved but people have always been killing people. Politicians are uneducated people that are not critical thinkers. They just haven't been made to understand the power of their constituents....yet. I inventoried just my reloading components last night and it's either smart or ridiculous. Point is, I can make a lot of ammo when I get around to it. I am a constituent.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
The issue? The control, dictating terms for people living their lives. Criminals and the stupid won't be impacted by such edicts (ie, as with operating a car, or running a hair dryer while wet, or going outside when there's threat of lightning).
Governments / authorities dictate terms for living your live from when you get up in the morning until you go to bed at night, like it or not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,620 Posts
I kinda think you’re missing the point. Everyone understands that rules are necessary for any society to function. The rules or laws as we call them in the states , well they’ve been arbitrarily crafted to hurt certain people while not really coming close to solving any problem. Again I don’t think this one little rule is going to adversely affect the industry but they will most likely have more to come. I’m always careful not to overreact to the first barrage cause the second and third are likely to be much worse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
Again I don’t think this one little rule is going to adversely affect the industry but they will most likely have more to come. I’m always careful not to overreact to the first barrage cause the second and third are likely to be much worse.
Agree, I don't see how having safes etc for sale will effect anyone people can choose to buy one or not. I also don't see it making any difference to crime one way or another.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,620 Posts
He Is basically a man with extreme convictions making a very unimportant rule which will mean little in the end. I do think guns should always be secured but this will do absolutely nothing to cure that problem. There also may be much more to this that I don’t understand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
There are certain rules and laws that we accept, as Manta said, we have to in order to be a society, but when it comes to firearms, we're a little unique because of 2A...actually, we're a little unique in a lot of ways, but since this is about firearms and the firearm industry in general....

The problem, in the wide view, is that politicians (at least here in the US) rarely do anything for altruistic reasons, there is nearly always some ulterior motive. It's no secret that a portion of our population, and certainly politicians, desire that we be disarmed completely. A larger portion want more stringent gun controls and restrictions. However, they know they can not outright ban all firearms. Even though we have prescribed procedures for amending our constitution, they also know there isn't enough agreement to meet the criteria to do that. Instead, we get, as previously mentioned, all manner of back ended means to chip away at it. It's been going on long enough and to sufficient extent that anyone who is pro-2A is hyper-sensitive to anything that remotely smells like something that's designed to do just that.

Just the very wording of the Constitution is a constant argument as to what it means. "Wordsmithing" is a "thing" and it's a constant battle.

So, yes, any time the government enacts something that alters or forces gun owners, or gun shops to jump through hoops is typically viewed as a move to chip away at the 2A. Sure, you might view making gun shops have safes or lock boxes available as trivial, but just like Clifffalling states, death by a thousand cuts happens. There are any number of cliches that describe the situation well: "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile", for example.

Also, when it comes to ceding powers to the government, it's well known that once you do, you never get it back.

So, finally, to make my personal perspective clear: The 2A means we citizens have the right to own whatever firearms we want, including machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles (still don't understand the point of barrel length being a "thing"), etc with zero interference or infringement from the government. I don't need their permission as they are not the grantors of said rights. I also don't need to be mandated on how or where I store my firearms. That's my decision, period. I also don't need their permission to carry and I don't need their permission to use one for self defense, especially given that the SCOTUS has ruled the police have no constitutional duty to protect me (or anyone).

ANY law, rule, mandate, etc made by the government to subvert that, in any way, is infringement. The entire anti-gun attitude is completely and wholly unfounded as we are, literally, surrounded by any means with which to visit death or destruction on others at will. After all, Timothy McVeigh murdered 169 people in seconds, and never fired a shot from any firearm.

Now, what I DO expect is to be held liable for any crimes I commit, or accessory to crimes committed by my action (or inaction).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
There are certain rules and laws that we accept, as Manta said, we have to in order to be a society, but when it comes to firearms, we're a little unique because of 2A...actually, we're a little unique in a lot of ways, but since this is about firearms and the firearm industry in general....

The problem, in the wide view, is that politicians (at least here in the US) rarely do anything for altruistic reasons, there is nearly always some ulterior motive. It's no secret that a portion of our population, and certainly politicians, desire that we be disarmed completely. A larger portion want more stringent gun controls and restrictions. However, they know they can not outright ban all firearms. Even though we have prescribed procedures for amending our constitution, they also know there isn't enough agreement to meet the criteria to do that. Instead, we get, as previously mentioned, all manner of back ended means to chip away at it. It's been going on long enough and to sufficient extent that anyone who is pro-2A is hyper-sensitive to anything that remotely smells like something that's designed to do just that.

Just the very wording of the Constitution is a constant argument as to what it means. "Wordsmithing" is a "thing" and it's a constant battle.

So, yes, any time the government enacts something that alters or forces gun owners, or gun shops to jump through hoops is typically viewed as a move to chip away at the 2A. Sure, you might view making gun shops have safes or lock boxes available as trivial, but just like Clifffalling states, death by a thousand cuts happens. There are any number of cliches that describe the situation well: "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile", for example.

Also, when it comes to ceding powers to the government, it's well known that once you do, you never get it back.

So, finally, to make my personal perspective clear: The 2A means we citizens have the right to own whatever firearms we want, including machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles (still don't understand the point of barrel length being a "thing"), etc with zero interference or infringement from the government. I don't need their permission as they are not the grantors of said rights. I also don't need to be mandated on how or where I store my firearms. That's my decision, period. I also don't need their permission to carry and I don't need their permission to use one for self defense, especially given that the SCOTUS has ruled the police have no constitutional duty to protect me (or anyone).

ANY law, rule, mandate, etc made by the government to subvert that, in any way, is infringement. The entire anti-gun attitude is completely and wholly unfounded as we are, literally, surrounded by any means with which to visit death or destruction on others at will. After all, Timothy McVeigh murdered 169 people in seconds, and never fired a shot from any firearm.

Now, what I DO expect is to be held liable for any crimes I commit, or accessory to crimes committed by my action (or inaction).
From what i read the dealer has to have safes etc available, the buyer does not have to buy one. If the law was you could not buy the firearm without buying a safe, that would be different that would be a form of gun control IMO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,642 Posts
Governments / authorities dictate terms for living your live from when you get up in the morning until you go to bed at night, like it or not.
That's the point. That's what's so infuriating about it.

It is about the control, given it's the well-armed citizenry the staffers are against. It is against the nature of the BOR, which is expressly for the constraint of government against touching the rights of the people.

Being held to account for one's actual actions is one thing. Having rights taken away from all, though, is something else entirely. That's not via due process of law. That's via edict. And that's what cannot be lawfully tolerated, not in the U.S.

The Founders knew very well the breed of snake we were dealing with, in the case of the hired help, the "government" man, the person hired to do no harm and to execute the People's will within the constraints of the Constitution. They knew full well they were crafting a republic ... if we could keep it. Prescient little bunch they were, all things considered.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
From what i read the dealer has to have safes etc available, the buyer does not have to buy one. If the law was you could not buy the firearm without buying a safe, that would be different that would be a form of gun control IMO.
Yeah, that would be different, but no one is discussing that difference. We're talking about the government mandating product that must be sold in a specific retail business. Safes and lock boxes are available at many places, so there is NO legitimate reason for the government to mandate a gun retailer also sell them. If they weren't so widely and easily available, then there might be an argument for it, but that is simply not the case.

It's simply another government mandated hoop a gun business has to jump through. It isn't just us gun owning citizens they despise, it's also the businesses that make them and those that sell them to us.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,388 Posts
We're talking about the government mandating product that must be sold in a specific retail business.
Not even "sold" if customers don't buy them. Must be stocked and carried on inventory...by government mandate!
Whether or not they are an item in demand by their customer base.

Complete bureaucratic nonsense!

ellis
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
Me thinks their goal is to force FFL's out of business - especially those that aren't storefront types. We need to see a copy of the regulation as the press release isn't very complete. Regs on storage requirements to sell black powder in approved container forced many to abandon handling it - but there was no uproar, so many just stopped. When they figure out limiting access to ammo will be more effective than limiting access to firearms, we'll be in deep trouble. Stand by for a ram.
Maybe i am missing something, how could making stores have locks / safes put them out of business. From what i can see they could have one cheap safe and a few locks to comply. Having black powder in approved containers would just be common sense IMO, I would guess there are thousands of potentially dangerous materials that have to by law be stored and transported in approved containers why would black powder be any different.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
Maybe i am missing something, how could making stores have locks / safes put them out of business. From what i can see they could have one cheap safe and a few locks to comply. Having black powder in approved containers would just be common sense IMO, I would guess there are thousands of potentially dangerous materials that have to by law be stored and transported in approved containers why would black powder be any different.
It's not necessarily the actual regulation. It is the intent and principle that are at issue.
1: We believe the intent is yet another of a 1000 cuts to diminish our God given rights, namely the right to defend ourselves and country from enemies both foreign and domestic.
2: principle. They principle that this offends is that of a business owner to conduct business in a manner that they see fit. This regulation is onerous and protects no one as these instruments are already widely available, and free.
3: enforcement. This will give the BATFE further reason to investigate FFLs and potentially find clerical errors or similar and shut them down. (See point 1)
4: Rule of law. This is perhaps our biggest issue with the BATFE they legislate under the guise of regulations. They use the GCA and 'reimagine' it as they see fit, essentially rewriting the law. This is a pretty clear violation of the US Constituiton in many eyes.

In short, we believe this is an example of the 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, but that in this case it is true.
 
21 - 40 of 88 Posts
Top