For those who follow the ex-pat Brit, Bloke on the Range (BotR), who posts very entertaining movies about shooting in Switzerland on Youtube, here is his take on the referendum that was undertaken today.

But first, I'd like to have a couple of words of my own.

This day will live forever as the day that the Swiss nation, a shining light in the personal ownership of firearms, dropped their collective pants and bent over for the nay-sayers. Just a reminder that they are NOT in the EU, but their elected cantonal majority crapped in their hats anyway, and have made anybody who didn't vote their way look like criminals.

And now, from BotR -

Bloke on the Range
1 hour ago
A quick (heh) FAQ:

Yes, unfortunately we lost the referendum. The new law is likely to enter into force on 1 July (people have been saying 1 June, but the Bericht des Bundesrates says 1 July).

Yes, this sucks.

Yes, it could have been far, far worse - initial drafts of the law were jaw-droppingly bad. Small mercies and all that...

No, this will not affect the continued existence of BotR. We will keep calm and carry on.

Yes, this will be a bit more of a PITA for acquiring semiauto rifles with 11+ round magazines or pistols with 21+ round magazines in the future. Cost mostly. And having to prove you're a sports shooter (club membership or regular private range shooting, no German-style nonsense with "disciplines" though) or collector.

No, "collector" is not defined. So each canton will make it up for themselves.

Yes, buying exactly the same firearm with a smaller magazine is unaffected.

Yes, it's whether the firearms is equipped with such a magazine, not whether it's capable of receiving one.

No, what "equipped with" actually means isn't finalised (the rules contained a provision that was clearly unworkable and would have criminalised 2 people sharing a car to the range if 1 had a 10-round Stgw 90 and the other a 20-round Stgw 90. Hopefully that definition will go away).

No, affected firearms already acquired before entry into force are unaffected.

No, there is no change with respect to full auto or downconversions from full auto.

Yes, there's a variant of an SBR law coming in - semiauto rifles which can be folded or telescoped down to under 60cm OAL without losing function are affected too. The wording doesn't affect fixed stock carbines that are always below 60cm OAL and doesn't seem to affect folders/telescopers which are already below 60cm OAL with the stock deployed.

Yes, this will probably result in newly-sold short rifles having their stocks fixed or a firing mechanism disconnect built in.

Yes, I have bought ahead pretty much everything affected I think I need for the channel.

No, we won't be doing a video on this until the Implementing Regulations ("Waffenverordnung") are finalised, cos there are too many loose ends at the moment. I'm planning on doing it with Ines Elena Kessler who did excellent work as a leading light of the No campaign in the media and is part of the Kessler Auktionen family.

No, we won't be relocating to the US just yet

Yes, the EU are extremely likely to come back in a few years' time for another bite at the apple.

Yes, if you have a general question not in this list, the answer is likely "we don't know yet" cos the Waffenverordnung hasn't been finalised.

Thank you for your attention"

"Yes, it could have been far, far worse - initial drafts of the law were jaw-droppingly bad. Small mercies and all that..."

This is the poisonous nugget. This is the nature of progressivism. They are changing the culture on tiny step at a time. We know where they are going with this but since they are going there slowly we are not alarmed enough to stop them. As he says later, the Progressives will come again for another tiny step or a huge one of their pollution of the culture has metastasized.

quote:

No, affected firearms already acquired before entry into force are unaffected

In 10-15 years they will be. It happens like it’s in a playbook.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
Just a reminder that they are NOT in the EU,

quote:

Yes, the EU are extremely likely to come back in a few years' time for another bite at the apple.

I don't understand why the EU has any involvement when they (swiss) are not in the EU. :Confused:

What would happen if there were a national popular referendum today in he US on the Second Amendment, and strictly curtailing gun rights, done by straight popular vote. What do you think would win?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
What would happen if there were a national popular referendum today in he US on the Second Amendment, and strictly curtailing gun rights, done by straight popular vote. What do you think would win?

It's really hard to tell, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
What would happen if there were a national popular referendum today in he US on the Second Amendment, and strictly curtailing gun rights, done by straight popular vote. What do you think would win?

It's really hard to tell, isn't it?

Nor does it matter. But we all know that.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
In 10-15 years they will be. It happens like it’s in a playbook.

Here's one playbook:

The Colorado Model - 2008 - How the Dems/Left took control of a conservative state

quote:

darthfuster
delicately calloused

posted May 19, 2019 01:10 PM Hide Post
"Yes, it could have been far, far worse - initial drafts of the law were jaw-droppingly bad. Small mercies and all that..."

This is the poisonous nugget. This is the nature of progressivism. They are changing the culture on tiny step at a time. We know where they are going with this but since they are going there slowly we are not alarmed enough to stop them.

Someone wrote an excellent article about their methodology vis a vis tobacco as an example of how they work. (Sorry, I don't have info to link it.) But most of us are old enough to remember that the first step was to say to smokers, "Of course you can still smoke in restaurants, but we are just going to put you all together in the same section, a smoking section, so you don't annoy non-smokers."

Okay, that was it for a while.

But then it changed to, "You can't smoke in the restaurant proper, but of course you can smoke in the bar section-- and you can eat there as well, so no big deal."

Then some years go by and it changes again, this time to, "You cannot smoke in restaurants at all." Soon there is an addendum: "you will be restricted in other public venues as well."

Time passes, and "You cannot smoke in any public place at all. You must go outdoors if you want to smoke."

And, where we are now, "You must not only be outdoors, but you must be at least 15 feet from any doorway or window in any public building."

Keep in mind, this started as: "We're just going to put you smokers all together in the same section."

Their principal weapon in stripping individual freedoms is shame. It's too big a topic for one post, but if you look at all the stigmatized labels they attach to individuals they don't like-- racist, homophobe, xenophobe, chauvinist, white privileged-- every label is meant to make the target feel ashamed of himself. In Switzerland-- as here-- they point at mass shootings and suggest that if you do not support the changes they demand, you are responsible for the slaughter of innocents, especially children in their schools.

Let alone that their claims are not only baseless, but are actually inversions of truth-- "gun free zones," for example, invite mass shooters-- no one wants to be singled out for shaming. In other words, people-- voters-- are not thinking, "Is what they are saying true?" Instead, they are thinking, "Will I be publicly shamed for opposing restrictions on firearms?"

If you compare Second Amendment freedoms in America in 1950, say, with today, you see how they have chipped away at our freedom in tiny pieces over time.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: justjoe,

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
What would happen if there were a national popular referendum today in he US on the Second Amendment, and strictly curtailing gun rights, done by straight popular vote. What do you think would win?

It's really hard to tell, isn't it?

Nor does it matter. But we all know that.

Yup, changing the constitution takes more than just a popular vote, by design.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
What would happen if there were a national popular referendum today in he US on the Second Amendment, and strictly curtailing gun rights, done by straight popular vote. What do you think would win?

It's really hard to tell, isn't it?

Nor does it matter. But we all know that.

Yup, changing the constitution takes more than just a popular vote, by design.

You're all assuming the Left will follow the Constitution. . . .

flashguy

Most people in this country have bitten the bullet and firmly believe we are a democracy and thus the majority rules.. when in fact the republic we live in works off a constitution that can only be changed by a super majority then that would have to be approved by the Supreme Court.

The Swiss have only remained free and neutral due to their gun ownership. This is the beginning of the end for them.

Switzerland is just another geographic region that has lived too comfortably for too long. People's heads get soft and mushy under those conditions.

V.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

darthfuster
delicately calloused

posted May 19, 2019 01:10 PM Hide Post
"Yes, it could have been far, far worse - initial drafts of the law were jaw-droppingly bad. Small mercies and all that..."

This is the poisonous nugget. This is the nature of progressivism. They are changing the culture on tiny step at a time. We know where they are going with this but since they are going there slowly we are not alarmed enough to stop them.

Someone wrote an excellent article about their methodology vis a vis tobacco as an example of how they work. (Sorry, I don't have info to link it.) But most of us are old enough to remember that the first step was to say to smokers, "Of course you can still smoke in restaurants, but we are just going to put you all together in the same section, a smoking section, so you don't annoy non-smokers."

Okay, that was it for a while.

But then it changed to, "You can't smoke in the restaurant proper, but of course you can smoke in the bar section-- and you can eat there as well, so no big deal."

Then some years go by and it changes again, this time to, "You cannot smoke in restaurants at all." Soon there is an addendum: "you will be restricted in other public venues as well."

Time passes, and "You cannot smoke in any public place at all. You must go outdoors if you want to smoke."

And, where we are now, "You must not only be outdoors, but you must be at least 15 feet from any doorway or window in any public building."

Keep in mind, this started as: "We're just going to put you smokers all together in the same section."

Their principal weapon in stripping individual freedoms is shame. It's too big a topic for one post, but if you look at all the stigmatized labels they attach to individuals they don't like-- racist, homophobe, xenophobe, chauvinist, white privileged-- every label is meant to make the target feel ashamed of himself. In Switzerland-- as here-- they point at mass shootings and suggest that if you do not support the changes they demand, you are responsible for the slaughter of innocents, especially children in their schools.

Let alone that their claims are not only baseless, but are actually inversions of truth-- "gun free zones," for example, invite mass shooters-- no one wants to be singled out for shaming. In other words, people-- voters-- are not thinking, "Is what they are saying true?" Instead, they are thinking, "Will I be publicly shamed for opposing restrictions on firearms?"

If you compare Second Amendment freedoms in America in 1950, say, with today, you see how they have chipped away at our freedom in tiny pieces over time.

Completely a false flag.

Smoking is not a Constitutional Right. My guns don’t sicken or annoy anyone secondly. I don’t litter my brass at intersections or outside every door. I don’t wave my guns in the faces or others in public,. The comparison between gun owners and smokers is ludicrous. Not even including illness, the vast majority of smokers did this to themselves. Conversely, gun owners do not.

Well, with the Lead, PB regulation to curtail the affordability of ammunition and the carcinogenic warning labels that have made its way into firearm related products, I believe the health aspect of the shooting sports is being targeted.

I recently bought an accessory, not ammunition or solvent that had this warning label.

Couldn’t figure it ou, it was there nonetheless.

quote:

Completely a false flag.

Smoking is not a Constitutional Right. My guns don’t sicken or annoy anyone secondly. I don’t litter my brass at intersections or outside every door. I don’t wave my guns in the faces or others in public,. The comparison between gun owners and smokers is ludicrous. Not even including illness, the vast majority of smokers did this to themselves. Conversely, gun owners do not.

You missed the point entirely. There is no comparison with smoking and gun ownership. What the progressives did with smoking is just an EXAMPLE of how they work-- piecemeal in little bits over time. They started off with, "We're just going to create a special section for smokers in restaurants," and then, over decades, banished smokers from all public buildings and forbid them to smoke within 15 feet of a building.

As darthfuster said-- and I was expanding on that-- they move very slowly and in small steps so that we don't become as alarmed as we would be if we could see their intentions right at the outset.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
Most people in this country have bitten the bullet and firmly believe we are a democracy and thus the majority rules.. when in fact the republic we live in works off a constitution that can only be changed by a super majority then that would have to be approved by the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the Constitution like any contract, only works when parties abide by it.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
I don't understand why the EU has any involvement when they (swiss) are not in the EU. :Confused:

Switzerland is a party to the European Single Market as well as the Schengen and Dublin agreements (no border controls between members, asylum seekers have to register in the first state they enter and can be sent back there if they travel on). The latter is in play here regarding rules they have to take over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...pean_Union_relations

Turnout was reportedly below average, which might indicate that contrary to foreign popular expectation, people just didn't care as much about the issues to be voted on (some business tax proposition was also on the ballot). The Swiss government had advised that there wouldn't be any impact on national institutions like reservists taking home their service rifles, annual youth shooting competitions, etc. I remember from the gestation process of the EU guideline that various national particularities played a role, including Swiss (as non-EU members they don't have a vote but advisory input in relevant bodies, similar to Norway and Iceland). Translation into national law is up to member states, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
What would happen if there were a national popular referendum today in he US on the Second Amendment, and strictly curtailing gun rights, done by straight popular vote. What do you think would win?

It's really hard to tell, isn't it?

Nor does it matter. But we all know that.

Yup, changing the constitution takes more than just a popular vote, by design.

You're all assuming the Left will follow the Constitution. . . .

flashguy

They are a lawless bunch.
But then, the 2nd isn’t about hunting is it.