“How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

[Bart Carter]

I feel the NFA list and tax is a means to keep poor people from their 2nd amendment rights. You can expand that to any scheme that costs people money to have guns or ammo except for normal sales tax.

[RevolverRob]

What you're going to get is -

ALL assault "weapons" will either be banned or the "compromise" all will be NFA items. Assault weapon will be as broadly defined as possible to include virtually every semi-automatic weapon that isn't rimfire or a handgun and holds more than 5 rounds or can hold more than five rounds. That can't currently include handguns, because subsequent post-Heller rulings have made it clear a handgun ban is by and large unconstitutional.

After about 30-years, because assault weapons will be greatly reduced in sales and use, because each one requires NFA approval, they will ban them. They'll be able to do that, because "common use" will no longer be common. Since magazine bans are still good-to-go they will eventually squeeze out higher capacity semi-auto handguns and force them onto the NFA list and rinse and repeat.

They won't be "infringing" on your rights, because every citizen can purchase NFA items (in theory...we'll see how it shakes out at the state level) and since technically nothing is banned, it will hold up to judicial scrutiny. You pay taxes all the time...what's another tax?

"Hunting" long arms (read: bolt, lever, pump, and break action guns) and semi-autos with tubular or box magazines that cannot hold more than 10 rounds will continue to be freely available. Revolvers and semi-automatics with 10-round of less magazines will continue to be freely available. Until these latest two waves of control get through.

If the national gun control people were smart, this is precisely what they would do. A "ban" is the kind of thing loses elections. An "expansion of regulatory powers of the NFA" is precisely something Congress is allowed to do.

By the way this idea isn't new - it's precisely what Connecticut has done post-New Haven, albeit with a state-level system. The end result has been a ten-fold decrease in AR15 sales and transfers. You can still buy them in Conn. But you have to jump through the hoops and many are unwilling to.

Look at the level of confusion regarding NFA items already. I'd wager less than 5% of all gun owners in the U.S. own an NFA item or understand how to purchase one. Hell, I've been a gun owner for multiple decades and I don't own any NFA items. Due primarily to the legal hoops and spotty state-level laws surrounding them. It's not worth the hassle. Make people jump through hoops, some will, most won't.

[willie]

Who will our lobbyists be? Will their effort be fragmented? How will a weakened NRA perform? In the past fear of voter reprisal influenced outcomes. We can expect organized grassroots movement against our position. We will see celebrities young and old proposing restriction. We can expect messages from the young pleading for congressional action to provide safety. All of a sudden a "not cool" image will be paired with guns. Airheads will become authorities. Ellen, Whoopi, Rosie, and Oprah will enlist women to the anti gun crusade. They will appeal to mothers and grandmothers to protect children. The curious can dig up and examine corporate and institutional contributors to Hillary's campaign. They might do the same for Trump's campaign. Both lists will have powerful and wealthy groups who will step forward to participate in this roll against guns. I think that the other side will out spend us, out strategize us, and at the same time take advantage of fears real or imagined about threat of mass shootings.

[OlongJohnson]

What you're going to get is -

ALL assault "weapons" will either be banned or the "compromise" all will be NFA items. Assault weapon will be as broadly defined as possible to include virtually every semi-automatic weapon that isn't rimfire or a handgun and holds more than 5 rounds or can hold more than five rounds. That can't currently include handguns, because subsequent post-Heller rulings have made it clear a handgun ban is by and large unconstitutional.

Washington state has already created a law that defines rimfire semi-auto long guns (Ruger 10/22s) as assault weapons.

CA has a rimfire exemption to the "ugly features" assault weapon definition for long guns, but not for handguns. They have an exemption list for handguns that are suitable for use in the Olympics, but a Browning Silhouette that is specifically designed for knocking over steel chickens and goats at long distance with .22LR is not eligible and therefore an assault weapon (unless you remove one screw and run it without the forend, then it's perfectly safe).

It was California's laws that first clued me into the fact that it's not about the guns or the harm they can do.

"Hunting" long arms (read: bolt, lever, pump, and break action guns) and semi-autos with tubular or box magazines that cannot hold more than 10 rounds will continue to be freely available. Revolvers and semi-automatics with 10-round of less magazines will continue to be freely available. Until these latest two waves of control get through.

Bolt guns will get defined as sniper rifles somewhere in there. I'm not sure, but I think Australia's ban may have included lever-action rifles. I'm pretty sure they're subject to a higher level of regulation in some more "advanced" countries.

If the national gun control people were smart, this is precisely what they would do. A "ban" is the kind of thing loses elections. An "expansion of regulatory powers of the NFA" is precisely something Congress is allowed to do.

They will also apply inflation adjustment to the original NFA tax amount.

[the Schwartz]

This is perhaps the most concise summation of the anti's tactics that I have ever seen.

Look at the level of confusion regarding NFA items already. I'd wager less than 5% of all gun owners in the U.S. own an NFA item or understand how to purchase one. Hell, I've been a gun owner for multiple decades and I don't own any NFA items. Due primarily to the legal hoops and spotty state-level laws surrounding them. It's not worth the hassle. Make people jump through hoops, some will, most won't.

Every new law passed is really just another incremental reduction of the 2A that will lead eventually to an "indirect ban". If there is confusion in the interpretation of these laws, it goes to the favor of anti-2A's because pro-2A citizens and rights groups ultimately bear the cost of litigating for clarity (e.g.; Cuomo's efforts to drive the NRA to bankruptcy via litigation in New York state).

[the Schwartz]

Who will our lobbyists be? Will their effort be fragmented? How will a weakened NRA perform? In the past fear of voter reprisal influenced outcomes. We can expect organized grassroots movement against our position. We will see celebrities young and old proposing restriction. We can expect messages from the young pleading for congressional action to provide safety. All of a sudden a "not cool" image will be paired with guns. Airheads will become authorities. Ellen, Whoopi, Rosie, and Oprah will enlist women to the anti gun crusade. They will appeal to mothers and grandmothers to protect children. The curious can dig up and examine corporate and institutional contributors to Hillary's campaign. They might do the same for Trump's campaign. Both lists will have powerful and wealthy groups who will step forward to participate in this roll against guns. I think that the other side will out spend us, out strategize us, and at the same time take advantage of fears real or imagined about threat of mass shootings.

Unfortunately, this is already occurring on all fronts described above.

[the Schwartz]

The Antis will NEVER compromise. It’s always amusing to me to listen to these “what if we give up this and get that” kind of ideas made up my well meaning gun owners. It doesn’t work that way. One of the biggest lessons learned from my 20 year internment in Kalifornia is that the Left and their AntiGun ilk will NEVER be satiated and by extension never commit to any legitimate compromise. They want the whole pie and the only reason they are pushing these buy back plans is because they feel they have the political inertia to get it done. After than they WILL be coming for our beloved pistols.

You might as well ask them for a buy back in exchange for the ability to own 40watt plasma guns or light sabers.

Your post reminds of the quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ―Benjamin Franklin

[RevolverRob]

Washington state has already created a law that defines rimfire semi-auto long guns (Ruger 10/22s) as assault weapons.

CA has a rimfire exemption to the "ugly features" assault weapon definition for long guns, but not for handguns. They have an exemption list for handguns that are suitable for use in the Olympics, but a Browning Silhouette that is specifically designed for knocking over steel chickens and goats at long distance with .22LR is not eligible and therefore an assault weapon (unless you remove one screw and run it without the forend, then it's perfectly safe).

It was California's laws that first clued me into the fact that it's not about the guns or the harm they can do.

Rimfire will get a pass, because it's a place where legislation can come swiftly and to the forefront. Because we're discussing Federal vs. State level - the Fed will have to be more careful to not write things in that will get their proposed acts overturned immediately. Rimfire definitely would be challenged.

Bolt guns will get defined as sniper rifles somewhere in there. I'm not sure, but I think Australia's ban may have included lever-action rifles. I'm pretty sure they're subject to a higher level of regulation in some more "advanced" countries.

Australia initially took the 3rd World approach and banned repeating arms in certain calibers. There is still a fairly sizeable market for lever action arms in Australia, because of lower amounts of regulation. Pump shotguns, for instance, are more regulated than lever action shotguns.

The sniper rifle thing will be tough, because bolt guns with scopes are commonly used hunting apparatus. Sure, eventually down the line, it will get there, but that'll be about the time you and I shuffle off this mortal coil. Meanwhile, AR15s will be NFA restricted before my youngest nephew is old enough to buy one.

They will also apply inflation adjustment to the original NFA tax amount.

I've wondered if they can do that. There maybe something in the language of the GCA or FOPA that prevents them from doing so. They have to be careful though, taxation that represents a "burden" can also be deemed unconstitutional.

[Crow Hunter]

1. What’s a “military style semi-auto?” Does that just mean semi-auto firearms that look like full auto firearms? Does that mean all semi-auto firearms? There are several US military units and numerous foreign militaries issuing Glock handguns. Are Glocks “military style semi-autos?” Is a semi-auto shotgun?Are we going to vote on which firearms are included or are we going to let the legislators decide?

2. I’d actually be totally cool with this one. I’d bet most gun folks would happily turn in their SureFire 60 rounders and Magpul drums in exchange for being able to buy SBRs and suppressors without having to hop through the NFA hoops. I know I would. This is a compromise I’d happily get behind.

3. Will universal background checks come with a registry of firearms owners? I’ve heard great ideas for how to implement UBC checks without the government having a list of guns or gun owners but I doubt that’s how UBCs will actually be implemented.

"Military style semi-auto" would have to be actually defined by design. Preferably written by someone who actually understands firearms design. But my thought would be any rifle that was an actual real auto assault weapon by design and not including typical semiauto designed rifles.

I originally wrote "assault weapon" but that "definition" is way too broad and I am fairly certain that when the public sees "assault weapon" they aren't thinking of an M-1 Carbine or Ruger 10-22 or a Beretta A-400 shotgun, even though by some people's "definition" those are all "assault weapons". What they are really thinking of are evil black scary rifles with banana clip magazines and shoulder things that go up.

That is what the typical non-gun owning public is afraid of. They aren't afraid of wood stocked Mini-14s or hunting shotguns or M-1 Garands. They are afraid of guns that look like what the military uses and they think they all fire full auto. Or "full semiauto"...

I think putting them on the NFA list AND allowing them to be actually full auto is a much more workable solution than banning them and significantly more likely to get actual participation without bloodshed than a forced confiscation or an "Australian style buyback".

The UBC would be by person only, no firearm identification at all. There really isn't any need to have the serial number, make or model of the firearm to determine if I am allowed to own a firearm or not. No registration.

[Guinnessman]

Many of the democratic presidential candidates favor an Australian Style Gun Buyback. There are plenty of articles out there to read on their plans.

An Australian Style buyback will only increase the number of guns on the black market in this country. I think it will be an absolute nightmare, and criminals will take full advantage of the situation. Living in a banana republic will look good at that point.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/202...mass-shootings