Once passed into law, gun restrictions pretty much only go away if courts strike them down or if there's a sunset clause. Is it because way more red states get turned into blue states than the other way around? Just wondering why legislatures seem way more effective at passing gun control laws that are unpopular than removing these laws.
For the same reason that the "temporary" federal income tax passed in 1913 has never been repealed.
Same thing I expect California’s “temporary” elections map redistricting to do.
But it's only 3%, and it'll be repealed once WW1 is over!
Yeah, it's not gun control specific, pretty much all law works this way. Getting a law passed is far harder than getting a law repealed. The legislature focuses mostly on adding new laws, so the laws grow ever more complex.
Or the temporary fees for most bridges and tunnels (looking at you NYC) that were only supposed to cover the cost of building the infrastructure...
Yup, it's about control...
Please show me where in the 16th amendment to the constitution it indicates that it’s supposed to be temporary
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to impose taxes but it was the Revenue Act of 1913 that actually did it and it was passed specifically because it was supposed to be temporary.
It was passed specifically targeting the “only top 2% of earners”….and here we are.
This is exactly why you can't trust the "tax the rich" bullshit
Anyone who thinks the taxes on the rich aren't just going to be passed onto the consumer is an economically illiterate imbecile. All thats going to happen is that you, the little guy, are going to pay that tax.
The problem is there are a lot of economically illiterate imbeciles
That you are 100% right about
Back in 1913, the threshold to be subject to the income tax made it so only the top 2-3% of income earners had to pay
Only a fucking loser would defend income tax lmao
I don’t like it
I’m just pointing out that there’s no time limit
Don’t shoot the messenger
He's probably thinking of the The Revenue Act of 1861/1862
It's true of pretty much all laws
Not exclusively related to guns but I have said for a long time that virtually every law should include a sunset clause.
This would serve to prevent the legal ratchet that has been clamping down on our rights and civil liberties, and it would also set some kind of theoretical upper limit on the number of laws that exist, since at some point the entire legislative session would be devoted to rubber stamping existing laws.
I think a good policy would be automatic 10 year sunset on any law that doesn't get at least 70% of votes in both house and senate.
Nah, there's too many grabbers. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Tyranny of the majority and all that
Second this
The government is great at taking, not so much at giving.
They are great at giving away our money
No, they're taking it for themselves
Because neither the Democrats or Republicans want us to have guns or be well armed. Democrats are openly anti gun. Republicans are faux pro gun to get votes from the other half
This is basically true, except that there are some genuine progun Republicans, but I do not know of any who are Democrats
In my state Dems have total control and Bloomberg pays very well so no reason to repeal anything.
Fellow Maryland resident?
WA Bloomberg is the king here.
They do get repealed sometimes, but it takes a long time and generally the longer someone lives under a rule the less likely they are to find it strange.
I mean dry counties and things still exist.
Only took 117 years in NC to repeal our pistol purchase permit
Because most of the restrictions we want removed are in blue states who need to be made to comply by the court system, and many red states don't have laws worth political capital to overturn.
I believe FL was making some positive moves last year, and we are getting constitutional carry in many states.
This is why compromise doesn't work.
Politicians get elected to make laws not remove them.
Exactly, and once elected they want to stay elected. If they were to say repeal a gun control law and then there are some sort of incident they get blamed for as a result, it could cost them their job. The only way they'll consider repealing something is if they're insulated from the political risk of a bad event, or If the risk of doing nothing may cost them their job.
Unless the law is so old, the legislature has turned over and the politics of the jurisdiction have changed, the same people who created the law have to vote again to repeal it.
So you have to change the political makeup of the legislature or change the minds of this one.
Because the ruling class has been disarming the peasantry for thousands of years
Not almost never.
Back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it was almost impossible to carry a loaded gun in public. There were quite a few who were No Issue. Unless you were a cop you weren't taking a loaded pistol with you anywhere off your property or business. Most were May Issue which often translated to No Issue Except For People The Sheriff Liked aka toadies, big contributors, and those "with need" such as those who handled large cash amounts.
We now have over half of States as Constitutional Carry. You dont even need a permit to go about armed if youre otherwise legal to do so. The remainder are Shall Issue though a lot of those are thanks to The Courts making it so.
To your point certain types of gun control seem to stick. "Assault weapon" and capacity bans specifically.
a lot of people have more issue with not being allowed to exercise the right than being able to with restrictions. Theyre "regulations" to "keep people safe".
most people have only a passing knowledge about guns and they get their 'information' from the media and Hollywood. Silencers, full sized magazines, short barreled firearms, and 'military' features are depicted as scary and no one who is a good citizen needing one. They're 'war weapons' in the public eye.
a lot of money behind gun control. Monied interests are hostile to the right of an average dirty commoner having the same hardware as their protectors.
Government is always hostile to rights, that's why the Founders despite the Constitution only granting the Government certain powers, enumerated rights as bolded, highlighted, italicized examples of where their powers to regulate and control dont extend to. Because they know governments dont care about rights.
a lot of politicians are worried about being cast as their name being on "allowing weapons of war on the streets". Its why SCOTUS and other Courts dodge and dance when it comes to machineguns.
lack of inertia. Lawmakers have a lot of interests tugging on their sleeves, we the gun rights advocates dont have the monied reach that others do.
In short, government is hostile to rights especially rights that can be used against them, they have a lot of money reinforcing that attitude, not enough pulling the other way, and an uninformed/misinformed apathetic public who just generally dont care about it.
We have a lot to thank our gun rights orgs for getting us this far but the fight is still going to be long and never-ending.
If you were a business owner in Boston in the 1970's, you could readily obtain a pistol carry permit from the Boston police dept. I know this for sure, my father had one
Sure, some sheriff/police agencies were better about it than others. They were usually more friendly towards business owners as they handled cash especially to and from the bank. Getting one as you or me with no business to provide the "need" often you were SOL especially if the CLEO didnt like your name.
This all started in earnest with the 1968 gun control Act. That law introduced the lifetime ban for convicted felons. Before that, there was not even any talked about excuse to deprive anyone of guns forever. Overturning the 1968 GCA lifetime felon ban should be the #1 goal for progun people
Because republicans want gun control too, they just aren’t as loud about it
I posed this same question in gunpolitics a few weeks ago. Some positivity was noted in there.
that’s why congress is important, obama care is also still law
You should read the writings of the founding fathers. They explain it quite well. Government always seeks power and control. If never willingly yields up power once it has it. The surest way to gain complete power over the people is to disarm them. It’s far easier to defend a right you already have than to fight to restore a right once you’ve allowed it to be taken away.
The first and second amendments are the greatest protection against tyranny that we have, and the rights they represent the only true limiter of government power. Without the ability to communicate ideas and information and the ability to defend ourselves from the government, the people really have no way to resist tyranny and protect their liberty. That’s why free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are under constant attack.
Lastly, it’s because we the people comply with unconstitutional gun laws. The founders specifically told us to refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws; as the only way to nullify such laws. As long as we comply, there is no incentive to rescind these unconstitutional infringements.
Since 1934, we have been told the only way to protect our rights was to ‘compromise’ those rights, to make sure they aren’t completely taken away, and so they have been taken away one ‘compromise’ at a time. Furthermore, we have been indoctrinated to see government as our master, rather than our servant, and told that the only recourse we have is to comply with unconstitutional laws, while begging our masters to stop doing what they never had authority to do in the first place. Because of this, infringement has only grown over the last century. As long as we continue in this manner, that’s the way it will be.
Almost no laws get repealed once passed.
Across the board, laws are rarely removed, once passed.
These days, laws apparently have the power to cancel or rewrite federal amendments and state constitutions.
Gun control laws should have automatic rollback and sunset provisions, especially when we find abuse or when we don’t see the promised results.