Recent statistics have shown gun sales to have been steadily declining over the past two years. A common explanation is based in politics.
Not long ago, American gun owners felt President Barack Obama was likely to enact strict gun laws which made them want to purchase as many guns as possible while it was legal to do so. In turn, it’s fairly safe to assume President Donald Trump has no intention of doing so, making it less urgent. Although such concepts certainly play a role in the amount of gun sales at any given time, there are other factors at play as well.
Regardless of who is serving as president, Congress actually writes legislation which then requires the president to either sign into law or veto. Of course, there are means to override a veto and then the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, but court cases take time and the law generally stands as written until a Justice Department review. If Congress were to write a law demanding all of a certain type of weapon be turned in as illegal, it puts responsible gun owners in a conundrum. Do you turn in a valuable tool, or do you remain in violation of the law while waiting for the court to overturn it?
Only you can answer such a question and decide whether to keep a gun which is technically illegal even though you know yourself to be a responsible gun owner and the law to be unconstitutional. If you decide on the latter, you put yourself in the uncomfortable predicament. Even if you don’t break any other law to draw attention or warrant an unjustified search of your home, you won’t be able to use the weapon for practice and sport, as it only takes one person to hear you own it and call in an anonymous tip to law enforcement. An obvious solution if you can afford it is to have an extra to turn in, but that creates a separate set of problems should you wind up getting caught with the one you keep.
The recent bump stock ban is a perfect example of how these concepts work in real time. Imagine having bought one and before getting it set up on your gun and being able to use it, the ban went through and it had to be turned in without refunding the expense. Whether or not you agree with the ban at all, a more reasonable solution would have been to ban the manufacture and sale of such items without using an ex post facto law. It sets a precedent of government overreach in the sense of “what else” can be declared illegal and stolen from U.S. Citizens? It puts the status of gun ownership in question, as nobody wants to make what can be an expensive purchase when the possibility exists for the item to be confiscated, especially without reimbursement.
~ Ready to Fire News