I think the incoming administration will actively and passively attempt to further restrict access to firearms and ammunition from the private citizen. I don't think it will be in the form of a single sweeping blow (please hold The Senate), but a multifaceted approach with increased regulations, taxes, squeezing distribution channels, litigation, and so forth.

I purchased a new iPhone 12. Transferred my data/apps. Turns out that my Gunbroker app, shows up, but is no longer functional. A quick search suggests that due to a change in terms, Gunbroker is no longer eligible to be downloaded from Google Play or the App Store. Seems to still work on my web browser. Isolated- a minor inconvenience.

Nevertheless, it prompted me to start this thread for the purpose of tracking what's to come over the next four years. Hopefully there is little reason to bump...

Agree it will be multifaceted. 2A will never have to be touched. It will be worthless words on paper eventually.

There is still the Supreme Court, and one less liberal.

Could be. Or, instead of supposition, we wait and see what these idiots try and cook up.

The question is, if they did take all three branches and did start applying `sweeping' legislation, would a line then be drawn? You have to wonder. For example, it appears in Australia that option is now past.

i predict very little will happen, much like 2008-2016, but the gun industry will be raking in the bucks from the reactionaries, much like 2008-2016.

It's simple. Go after ammunition production. Tax the hell out of the components and it becomes prohibitively expensive, especially so for poor people, to exercise their 2A rights.

All they need is the ATF to continue to issue and change arbitrary rules that immediately are the law, without having to go through the legislative process. And it looks like the ATF will continue to do that regardless of the letter behind a politician's name.

And it is all done under the "WTF are you going to do about it you little Beotch" Clause which is in fine print at the bottom of the ATF's charter.

MarkoRamius said:

---

It's simple. Go after ammunition production. Tax the hell out of the components and it becomes prohibitively expensive, especially so for poor people, to exercise their 2A rights.

---

Wouldn't this lead to a bonanza for organized crime with them able to switch from the more dangerous trafficking to a black market for this where - like Prohibition days -- they would have active support of much of the regular public covering for them and little hostility toward their actions beyond enforcement?

YouBet said:

---

Agree it will be multifaceted. 2A will never have to be touched. It will be worthless words on paper eventually.

---

MarkoRamius said:

---

It's simple. Go after ammunition production. Tax the hell out of the components and it becomes prohibitively expensive, especially so for poor people, to exercise their 2A rights.

---

I would argue that any taxes on firearms or ammunition is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and the equal protection clause.

Mayor West,

That cartoon should be how all start treating their eroded liberty overall. This being `held hostage' just by the possibility of either party taking all three branches needs to end. They need to not be allowed to impose tyranny just because they won elections. They swear oaths to uphold the Constitution and the American values, after all.

The banning of online ammo sales, if passed, will lead to permanent shortages.

Skillet Shot said:

---

The banning of online ammo sales, if passed, will lead to permanent shortages.

---

How was it sold before 1998 or so? That alone shouldn't lead to shortages.

But couldn't a black market start meeting that call.

AcesAnd8s said:

---

I think the incoming administration will actively and passively attempt to further restrict access to firearms and ammunition from the private citizen. I don't think it will be in the form of a single sweeping blow (please hold The Senate), but a multifaceted approach with increased regulations, taxes, squeezing distribution channels, litigation, and so forth.

I purchased a new iPhone 12. Transferred my data/apps. Turns out that my Gunbroker app, shows up, but is no longer functional. A quick search suggests that due to a change in terms, Gunbroker is no longer eligible to be downloaded from Google Play or the App Store. Seems to still work on my web browser. Isolated- a minor inconvenience.

Nevertheless, it prompted me to start this thread for the purpose of tracking what's to come over the next four years. Hopefully there is little reason to bump...

---

I'll take no reversal of rights at all for $500.

Is a slowdown on processing tax stamps considered a reversal of 2A rights?

rocky the dog said:

---

---

And the American citizens had better guns than the British Army.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

And the American citizens had better guns than the British Army.

---

And definitely better ships. Which is a little surprising, but certainly held true. And became redundantly obvious in the War of 1812 in particular.

lb3 said:

---

Is a slowdown on processing tax stamps considered a reversal of 2A rights?

---

Man, we saw the same **** before Obama was inaugurated and all it did was raise prices on ammo. Obama's closest call was a bill that didn't even leave committee.

titan said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

And the American citizens had better guns than the British Army.

---

And definitely better ships. Which is a little surprising, but certainly held true. And became redundantly obvious in the War of 1812 in particular.

---

Did not know that.

But the Brits way outnumbered our Navy, correct? Don't we owe the French a debt for keeping part of the British Fleet occupied off the coasts of Europe?

rocky the dog said:

---

---

and citizens had artillery....

CanyonAg77 said:

---

titan said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

And the American citizens had better guns than the British Army.

---

And definitely better ships. Which is a little surprising, but certainly held true. And became redundantly obvious in the War of 1812 in particular.

---

Did not know that.

But the Brits way outnumbered our Navy, correct? Don't we owe the French a debt for keeping part of the British Fleet occupied off the coasts of Europe?

---

Oh yes, vastly outnumbered. But the qualitative difference in both construction, and often even in seamanship, was very marked. John Paul Jone's famous fight showed remarkable handling against a far more powerful adversary. It remains very striking that his crew has to board their prize Serapis because their own ship sank. Many tales like that.

Similar in 1812 war. Better seamanship allowed the Constitution to avoid a British squadron when caught one time in weak winds. This kind of thing happens repeatedly. But it didn't always go that way --- a British squadron also ran down and captured her sister ship, President.

The French fleet's intervention helped us win the battle of Yorktown. But it wasn't ongoing through the whole war.

lb3 said:

---

MarkoRamius said:

---

It's simple. Go after ammunition production. Tax the hell out of the components and it becomes prohibitively expensive, especially so for poor people, to exercise their 2A rights.

---

I would argue that any taxes on firearms or ammunition is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and the equal protection clause.

---

We've already been down that road with the NFA and firearms taxes in general, and SCOTUS ruled it was legal in US vs Miller. I highly doubt the current SCOTUS will overturn a precedent, involving the most politically charged issue, that has stood for nearly 82 years.

txyaloo said:

---

lb3 said:

---

MarkoRamius said:

---

It's simple. Go after ammunition production. Tax the hell out of the components and it becomes prohibitively expensive, especially so for poor people, to exercise their 2A rights.

---

I would argue that any taxes on firearms or ammunition is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and the equal protection clause.

---

We've already been down that road with the NFA and firearms taxes in general, and SCOTUS ruled it was legal in US vs Miller. I highly doubt the current SCOTUS will overturn a precedent, involving the most politically charged issue, that has stood for nearly 82 years.

---

It would be a tough fight, but today we can use the left's own arguments against them by making it a racial disparity issue which wasn't really the concern when Bonny and Clyde were mowing down cops with their Tommy guns.

txyaloo said:

---

lb3 said:

---

MarkoRamius said:

---

It's simple. Go after ammunition production. Tax the hell out of the components and it becomes prohibitively expensive, especially so for poor people, to exercise their 2A rights.

---

I would argue that any taxes on firearms or ammunition is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and the equal protection clause.

---

We've already been down that road with the NFA and firearms taxes in general, and SCOTUS ruled it was legal in US vs Miller. I highly doubt the current SCOTUS will overturn a precedent, involving the most politically charged issue, that has stood for nearly 82 years.

---

Well let's see, when there is no appearance by Miller what was the expected outcome?

Should the court be expected to rule for the side that failed to show? opinion from the legal eagles?

Quote:

---

United States Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MILLER(1939)
No. 696
Argued: March 30, 1939Decided: May 15, 1939

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. [307 U.S. 174, 175] Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.


No appearance for appellees.

---

Quote:

---

Bonny and Clyde were mowing down cops with their Tommy guns.

---

I believe their automatic weapon of choice was BARs stolen from National Guard armories.

schmendeler said:

---

i predict very little will happen, much like 2008-2016, but the gun industry will be raking in the bucks from the reactionaries, much like 2008-2016.

---

I agree.

One often ignore fact is the amount of people who own high capacity semi automatic rifles today compared to just ten years ago, much less 1994, has grown exponentially. As in went from a couple hundred thousand in the 1990's to into the eight figures today. Those by nature are not going to be easy to restrict.

I agree with this point, and the explosion of the modern sporting rifle market- not to mention, pistols with >10 round mags. The majority of those folks are pretty adamant about keeping those arms. But, those rifles/pistols are fairly harmless without ammunition. I think it's harder to get an accurate estimate of how much ammo is out there- especially if the supply was severely interrupted.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Bonny and Clyde were mowing down cops with their Tommy guns.

---

I believe their automatic weapon of choice was BARs stolen from National Guard armories.

---

Live by the BAR and die by the BAR, and they did.

AcesAnd8s said:

---

I agree with this point, and the explosion of the modern sporting rifle market- not to mention, pistols with >10 round mags. The majority of those folks are pretty adamant about keeping those arms. But, those rifles/pistols are fairly harmless without ammunition. I think it's harder to get an accurate estimate of how much ammo is out there- especially if the supply was severely interrupted.

---

Agreed that it is hard to quantify the ammo, but my semi educated guess is that it is a whole hell of a lot. We sell untild millions of rounds every year. I do believe the stockpile has quadrupled at least in the last 15 years for all cartridges and all applications.


I also agree that those gun owners are adamant, and a point often overlooked is that a lot of those gun owners vote for Democrats. That voting block is, by far, the most important and easiest low hanging fruit preventing the progressives from passing legislation. I can tell you that in a lot of FFls across the country you would find a large minority of liberals(not progressives). And most of them are as adamant as anyone else. They will put an enourmous amount of pressure on the Democrats.

AcesAnd8s said:

---

I agree with this point, and the explosion of the modern sporting rifle market- not to mention, pistols with >10 round mags. The majority of those folks are pretty adamant about keeping those arms. But, those rifles/pistols are fairly harmless without ammunition. I think it's harder to get an accurate estimate of how much ammo is out there- especially if the supply was severely interrupted.

---

Lets see on the ammo estimate, for every million gun owners that have 100 rounds of centerfire ammo there are 100,000,000 rounds. If you extrapolate to 50 million gun owners that gives you 5 billion rounds. How many gun owners have just 100 rounds? And how many more gun owners are there than 50 million?

And if you add in rimfire ammo?

ETA:

Quote:

---

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/how-much-ammunition-is-produced-for-the-united-states-market/#ixzz6faDb0pTq

A reasonable extrapolation puts the amount of ammunition produced for the United States market at somewhat over 9 billion rounds, of which 5 billion are rimfire and 4 billion are centerfire rifle, pistol, and shotgun rounds in 2020.

---

So if 50 million gun owners want to buy 100 rounds of centerfire ammo annually there is an unmet demand of 1 billion rounds

agsalaska said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

i predict very little will happen, much like 2008-2016, but the gun industry will be raking in the bucks from the reactionaries, much like 2008-2016.

---

I agree.

One often ignore fact is the amount of people who own high capacity semi automatic rifles today compared to just ten years ago, much less 1994, has grown exponentially. As in went from a couple hundred thousand in the 1990's to into the eight figures today. Those by nature are not going to be easy to restrict.

---

That's a difficult stat to track. The term "high capacity" when referring to magazines is one that has only come up in the past 10-12 years. Before that, they were just "magazines". Creating the term "high capacity magazine", and declaring it dangerous, and setting the threshold to a particular number is just a way to try and demonize something normal as extreme.