When will the time be right to start pushing back?
I've responded to this post.
I'll admit I didn't get active about politics until the AWB and Brady were passed.
That was 18 years ago. The ban has been expired for 8. We've been holding our breath about it coming back for that long too.
Every other year someone hits me up for money to stop the anti-gun menace.
Every other year I decline.
Why?
Because the anti-gun groups are in total disarray! Haven't you been reading the gun-blogs? They are all defunded and close to becoming non-entities.
With them out of the fight that means that the tide should be running the other direction, no?
What I want to know is why no gun control law is ever repealed.
Lots of people point to the Assault Rifle Ban's expiration like it's some sort of victory for our side, like our money kept it from being renewed. Like I wasn't there in 1994 and paying attention.
"We need money to repeal Brady and the AWB! Your generous donation will help put pro-gun candidates in office." So I donated. Donated until it hurt. Gave up luxuries. Got "pro-gun" candidates elected and in office. And the very next session of congress, now fully Republican, put a repeal of the assault weapons ban on Bill Clinton's desk!
Oh, wait...
The AWB went away because to get it passed at all (with the supposed anti-gun congress they wanted money to get rid of) they had to include a sunset provision. And it did sunset rather than being repealed.
I've been very involved in politics for the last 20 years and I am just not seeing anything "pro-gun" about anyone we've sent. I can see a lot that isn't anti-gun, but that's not the same thing.
Far too many of us gunnies have something akin to Stockholm Syndrome, they act any politician who isn't actively fucking us is on our side. But they aren't. They only want our vote and once that's secured they don't do anything beyond maintaining the status quo.
They want me to fund, for the most part, the same party whose presidents signed the laws that gave us BOTH 922(o) and 922(r)! Those two provisions were small addendum to larger bills, why cannot we get them repealed in the same manner as they were added?
I keep hearing, "the time is not right" and "we need a clean case" to present these. OK, well, it's been 26 years on 922(o). It's been 22 years on 922(r). More than ten election cycles each and I am still waiting.
Put the repeal of those in EVERY SINGLE BILL and force it to be debated in every committee meeting and every step of the way. Carthage was eventually destroyed, you know.
Until the "pro-gun" side starts doing this they won't get any money for candidates from me. I'll keep my money for paying organizations like SAF or Florida Carry, both of whom do more than just back candidates. Neither of which has every pissed down my back and told me it's raining, I'm looking at you Wayne and Marion.
922(r), IIRC, springs from the '89 Bennett/Bush imported assault weapon ban.
ReplyDelete922(r) is the Bennett/Bush executive order made law. Nailed it.
DeleteOh, and they justified it on drug war grounds; a burr that's under my saddle of late.
I'd like to see repeals of GCA '68 as well as the 1934 law. Not that I particularly want to own a machinegun myself (I'd never be free of all my "new friends" wanting to come over and play with it; I'd never get a chance with it myself) but I detest being told that I have to jump through a bunch of hoops with the Feds...and even if I satisfy them, the state of Iowa still says "no."
ReplyDeleteThe Feds' laws are a problem, but a lot of people have worse ones with state-level laws.
If you have a carry permit you've already jumped through all of the hoops required for NFA ownership, really.
DeleteI'd honestly be happy with a repeal of 922(o) and expanding the staff in Martinsburg to fit the demand.
The point of this post was that nobody on "our" side is even trying to get rid of it. Repeal of 922(o) doesn't mean "free MG's for everyone" it means a return to the same NFA process that was laid out in 1934. We have to start with something, why not this?