So when we win Nordyke and Barack tries a permanent AWB then what?

[GMONEY]

Seriously how does this play out...

[dreyna14]

With the now commonality of any group of weapons that would be addressed by any new AWB would leave big grounds for a good challenge.

[hoffmang]

I'm dubious that we see a new AWB. However, Nordyke has nothing to do with Federal law. Heller already applies to the Federal government.

If one were to pass The Right People would choose our most friendly circuit court and file for an injunction to stop the law from taking effect regardless of the outcome of timing of Nordyke.

-Gene

[LiquidFlorian]

I've heard speculation on some right blogs that most Blue Dog Democrats have too much to loose to pass a bill like the AWB again... but yeah, thats just speculation

[berto]

I've heard speculation on some right blogs that most Blue Dog Democrats have too much to loose to pass a bill like the AWB again... but yeah, thats just speculation

They'll lose their jobs and the job is what matters most to politicians.

[Ford8N]

The more you can promote the EBR and make it a mainstream firearm, the Remington R15 for example, the harder it will be to ban them. I've noticed even the hard core EF's at the range are talking about getting "one of those new Remington's". This is good.

[formerTexan]

ok, so a new Fed. AWB can be fought in the DC Circuit, but what about non-legislative anti-2A acts like (I'm unsure if all the things below can be done without legislation, but it seems possible given the current import bans):

1. Expanding import bans to all semi-auto firearms and magazines

2. Expanding ammo import bans

3. Raising firearm and ammo excise taxes

How can each of these be fought?

[7x57]

I'm dubious that we see a new AWB.
-Gene

It all depends on which voices you believe and who is making the real decisions. It seems that the plausible scenarios are:

(1) Avoid picking a direct fight like a renewed AWB at least until after the 2010 elections, and stick with some rhetoric to throw a bone to their hard-core anti-gun constituency without actually giving them anything substantial, or at most using executive power alone where that is possible.

(2) Use an AWB or other major gun-control legislation to distract from the fact that they promised to descend from on high on clouds of glory to usher in the Millenium and other, ahem, difficult to produce miracles.

In favor of (1) is the fact that this seems to be the Clinton administration, part two, and Clinton was a strong voice in favor. On the other hand, it's fair to say that Obama himself is a true-believer in a way that an Arkansas boy probably could never be; so this requires his pragmatism to win over his own personal beliefs. That is very, very possible, as he himself is the very soul of ambition, but should be noted.

In favor of (2) is the fact that such plans seem to have appeared on the transition team's list from day one. But it must be said that such things can be listed as part of the fan-service in (1); such lists are not even promises, and putting them on lists does not actually mean you have any intention of doing them. The only danger is creating an expectation of following strategy (2) that is strong enough that it becomes hard to keep a lid on it.

I wonder if we might even see a split in strategy between the congressional leadership and the administration--the Democratic party is not a monolith. I place no confidence in the blue-dog Democrats; their numbers seem to have dwindled.

Which strategy seems more profitable is basically a pain/pleasure calculation, so I am actually happy about the panic buying. It is a form of communication, and the message it carries shifts the calculation toward strategy (1).

Winning incorporation in Nordyke should also make (2) seem a lot more perilous, even though as you say it isn't formally relevant.

7x57

[JDay]

They'll lose their jobs and the job is what matters most to politicians.

I doubt that, look at all the people who voted for Obama then ran to the gun shops when he got elected for fear of him banning firearms.

[50 Shooter]

How does it play out?

You own a firearm, use it. Or learn what it means to be a subject!

[HunterJim]

I wonder if we might even see a split in strategy between the congressional leadership and the administration--the Democratic party is not a monolith. I place no confidence in the blue-dog Democrats; their numbers seem to have dwindled.
7x57

One of the Blue Dog Dems in an interview this week pointed out that the Blue Dogs plus the Republicans would be a majority in the House; he pointed out that they didn't have a plan to go that route, but could do so if conditions warrant.

I expect that comment was a message to the House Democrat leadership.

jim

[7x57]

One of the Blue Dog Dems in an interview this week pointed out that the Blue Dogs plus the Republicans would be a majority in the House;


I didn't think there were enough left.


he pointed out that they didn't have a plan to go that route, but could do so if conditions warrant.

I expect that comment was a message to the House Democrat leadership.



Well, then, hurray for good ol' Southern boys who like their hound dawgs and guns!

7x57

[Vin496]

How does it play out?

You own a firearm, use it. Or learn what it means to be a subject!

We got a Canary ***!!!!

[Gator Monroe]

Private Firearms ownership in US has 15 years more (Tops) but two terms for Obama could take 2-4 years off that 15 years ...:chris:

[hoffmang]

ok, so a new Fed. AWB can be fought in the DC Circuit, but what about non-legislative anti-2A acts like (I'm unsure if all the things below can be done without legislation, but it seems possible given the current import bans):


All Federal activity can be challenged in any Federal Court in the nation.

-Gene

[Yankee Clipper]

I'm dubious that we see a new AWB. However, Nordyke has nothing to do with Federal law. Heller already applies to the Federal government.

If one were to pass The Right People would choose our most friendly circuit court and file for an injunction to stop the law from taking effect regardless of the outcome of timing of Nordyke.

-Gene

Why didn't they do that for Clinton's AWB or SB 23? (Or was it recess at the time, I'm out in the sand box and missed it?)
I just read your post in another thread, did they also do this after the Federal AWB?:
"We were one vote away from stopping SB-23 but we couldn't. You'll note that NRA sued immediately on both Roberti Roos and SB-23."

[Liberty1]

Why didn't they do that for Clinton's AWB or SB 23? (Or was it recess at the time, I'm out in the sand box and missed it?)

Heller and 2nd A. as an individual civil right didn't exist.

[bwiese]

Why didn't they do that for Clinton's AWB or SB 23? (Or was it recess at the time, I'm out in the sand box and missed it?)

Because at the time of the Clinton AWB and SB23 there was not yet any Heller decision asserting an individual RKBA. And if a Heller case were fought back in those days, it may not have produced the result we wanted given different court composition.

And yes, CA AW laws were challenged by a bunch of idiots at the wrong time and it almost lead to unmitigated disaster (read up on Silviera and Gary Gorsky).

We are following the right path.

[7x57]

And yes, CA AW laws were challenged by a bunch of idiots at the wrong time and it almost lead to unmitigated disaster (read up on Silviera and Gary Gorsky).


Maybe a permanent writeup with a focus on the perils of badly conceived challenges would be a good thing to have around. Sticky?

7x57

[berto]

I doubt that, look at all the people who voted for Obama then ran to the gun shops when he got elected for fear of him banning firearms.

You equate voters doing what's trendy or voting on issues other than 2A with congress critters who by nature want to remain in congress. It's irrational for a politician to support something that will cost him his job.

[Kid Stanislaus]

Seriously how does this play out...


Didn't you hear, a permanent AW ban is a "common sense" type off gun control. :rolleyes:

[ilbob]

Seriously how does this play out...
Depends on a lot of things. If he really wants it, he will have no real trouble getting it, although it could cost him control of the 2010 congress.

If he gets it, he probably won't have any real trouble getting it past the courts. Government routinely gets what it wants at the expense of the liberty of mere citizens and that situation has not really been ever adequately addressed by the courts.

I cannot think of a single case in the last 50 years where the SCOTUS fundamentally ruled against government and in favor of individual liberty IAW the constitution. There have been a few minor things here and there that amounted to almost nothing in the long run, but nothing substantive.

[rbgaynor]

Depends on a lot of things. If he really wants it, he will have no real trouble getting it, although it could cost him control of the 2010 congress.

If he gets it, he probably won't have any real trouble getting it past the courts. Government routinely gets what it wants at the expense of the liberty of mere citizens and that situation has not really been ever adequately addressed by the courts.

I cannot think of a single case in the last 50 years where the SCOTUS fundamentally ruled against government and in favor of individual liberty IAW the constitution. There have been a few minor things here and there that amounted to almost nothing in the long run, but nothing substantive.

How about the Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act - government got slapped pretty hard there on first amendment grounds.

[yellowfin]

It's irrational for a politician to support something that will cost him his job.
That hinges on two assumptions: that they assess the matter as harmful to their reelection (the win by TPFI may suggest to them that anti 2A is invincible) and that they are rational.

[Silverback]

I'm dubious that we see a new AWB. However, Nordyke has nothing to do with Federal law. Heller already applies to the Federal government.

If one were to pass The Right People would choose our most friendly circuit court and file for an injunction to stop the law from taking effect regardless of the outcome of timing of Nordyke.

-Gene

Fighting in the court system is the civil way of handling the situation. However I no longer have any faith in politicians and believe our rights have suffered way more than needed. I haven't communicated with any politician and actually had any results worth mentioning. After saying that, remember Rahm Emanuel and the story of him sending a dead fish to a coworker? If ANY politician, including BHO authors or supports a gun bill I believe every gun owner should send them a turd as a political statement. :mad:

[56Chevy]

Depends on a lot of things. If he really wants it, he will have no real trouble getting it, although it could cost him control of the 2010 congress.

If he gets it, he probably won't have any real trouble getting it past the courts. Government routinely gets what it wants at the expense of the liberty of mere citizens and that situation has not really been ever adequately addressed by the courts.

I cannot think of a single case in the last 50 years where the SCOTUS fundamentally ruled against government and in favor of individual liberty IAW the constitution. There have been a few minor things here and there that amounted to almost nothing in the long run, but nothing substantive.
I'm wondering what they may try to slip into the next "stimulus" bill that MUST be passed.