PDA

View Full Version : Would we Californian's be better off if there were a federal preemption of gun laws?


littlejake
07-08-2012, 9:37 AM
Would we Californian's be better off if there were a federal preemption of gun laws -- with no grandfathering in of existing laws?

Prima facie, it would seem so, as currently the most restrictive laws come down from our state.

But, is there a downside? For example, are bad laws easier to fight on a state level?

I've never been a big fan of concentration of power into the central government (Federalism.) I've been more in favor of states rights.

The non-uniformity of gun laws has negative consequences even to those who live in more free states. Example, a person from AZ drives to OR through CA and has a banned magazine or firearm, he commits a felony.

Frankly, I'd like to see all gun laws reset to pre GCA 1968 -- but, I know that's not going to happen.

wireless
07-08-2012, 9:46 AM
Frankly, I'd like to see all gun laws reset to pre GCA 1968 -- but, I know that's not going to happen.


Don't give up yet! You might not see it in your life time but if my children get to live in that world it's a great thing.

hoffmang
07-08-2012, 10:44 AM
I would say yes, but. The but is that the courts that would take that preemption seriously are the same courts that take the 2A seriously. So in effect, Federal preemption may not buy us all that much that the currently running court cases will not get us.

I don't think NRA passing something like it would hurt though.

-Gene

SilverTauron
07-08-2012, 11:00 AM
In an alternate universe where HR822 or similar legislation is signed into law-



"We in California are disappointed in the Federal Government's lack of commitment to strong gun laws. We still believe that strong gun laws are the key to a safe society, and we'll fight to ensure our state doesn't become the Wild West despite Washington's capitulation to the Gun Lobby"


-California state legislature statement, July 2014.

TimRB
07-08-2012, 11:38 AM
So in effect, Federal preemption may not buy us all that much that the currently running court cases will not get us.

I'm sure that's true, but consider also the different political situation. Representatives from the entire nation would be voting on demonstrably worthless California-style gun laws. That alone would make for more balanced decisions, but since there are no term limits on Federal Representatives and Senators, they would be more likely to fear a Clinton-era Congressional bloodbath backlash.

Tim

kcstott
07-08-2012, 11:58 AM
There should be a law against legislation that has no foundation in reality.

It would be something like The prevention of wasted taxes and the injection of intelligence Act

We have two good gun laws on the books and that is essentially all we need.

Prohibited persons may not buy a firearm.
And Prohibited person may not be in possession of firearms.

I think based on that foundation alone All the AW laws and Magazine Capacity limits are useless and have no foundation other then to restrict what the average joe can own.

One thing that does rub me the wrong way is when I see someone post (and usually on a ComProp news article site) that there is no "Need for certain firearms", Or that "Can you hunt with it?" No one tells you what kind of car you can own Despite the fact that most can easily exceed the maximum speed law. No one tells you how much Alcohol you can buy at once. Despite the fact that there are drive through liquor stores. And drunk driving kills a tremendous amount of people everyday.

It is up to the owner of the firearm to use it in a safe and prudent manner just the same as we must drive in a safe and prudent manner along with being cautious about our drinking habits.

rp55
07-08-2012, 1:00 PM
Something that might work would be like Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that requires "designated States and political subdivisions to obtain federal preclearance–either from the Attorney General or from the District Court for the District of Columbia–before giving effect to changes in their voting laws."

Such "designated states and politics subdivisions" are those that had traditionally been hostile to minority voters rights. Here in Californian, Monterey County is subject to Section 5, even when implementing changes required under California law LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY (97-1396) 525 U.S. 266 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=federal%20and%20courts&url=/supct/html/97-1396.ZS.html).

This sort of procedure has been the subject of all kinds of challenges up to and including the Supreme Court and been held constitutional. If gun rights are to be equal to voting rights then Congress could certainly put the usual subjects (CA, HI, IL, NJ, NY and MA) that have demonstrated hostility to gun rights under such an obligation. Especially a subdivision like NYC that ignores and flaunts it refusal to follow Federal protections for those otherwise law-abiding citizens transporting firearms through it.

Granted that it would be farce under an Obama/Holder Justice Department, but being required to obtain Federal preclearance before making any changes to the law might put the brakes on some of the stupidity in Sacramento like SB 249.

Such a law would also provide some much needed amusement by letting use watch pols like Emmanuel, Bloomberg and Yee furious at being brought to heel.

SilverTauron
07-08-2012, 1:29 PM
Something that might work would be like Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that requires "designated States and political subdivisions to obtain federal preclearance–either from the Attorney General or from the District Court for the District of Columbia–before giving effect to changes in their voting laws."

Such "designated states and politics subdivisions" are those that had traditionally been hostile to minority voters rights. Here in Californian, Monterey County is subject to Section 5, even when implementing changes required under California law LOPEZ V. MONTEREY COUNTY (97-1396) 525 U.S. 266 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=federal%20and%20courts&url=/supct/html/97-1396.ZS.html).

This sort of procedure has been the subject of all kinds of challenges up to and including the Supreme Court and been held constitutional. If gun rights are to be equal to voting rights then Congress could certainly put the usual subjects (CA, HI, IL, NJ, NY and MA) that have demonstrated hostility to gun rights under such an obligation. Especially a subdivision like NYC that ignores and flaunts it refusal to follow Federal protections for those otherwise law-abiding citizens transporting firearms through it.

Granted that it would be farce under an Obama/Holder Justice Department, but being required to obtain Federal preclearance before making any changes to the law might put the brakes on some of the stupidity in Sacramento like SB 249.

Such a law would also provide some much needed amusement by letting use watch pols like Emmanuel, Bloomberg and Yee furious at being brought to heel.


The problem with this strategy is the "Public Safety" shibboleth. There's no obvious public safety interest or justification for a government, State or Federal, to regulate voting rights. Unfortunately for a civil rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, criminals use guns. This gives governments a justification for Gun Control based on the grounds of public safety. To put it differently, crooks dont use the right of free speech or voting to directly commit crimes like firearms are, so it has to be "regulated" accordingly.

Note that I don't agree with this idea-logically speaking mail and vote fraud do more damage to "Public Safety" than any street vato with a Hi-Point , but that's why even if the 2nd Amendment is recognized as a fundamental right it will always be regulated to some extent.

kcstott
07-08-2012, 1:47 PM
And hence I could say we have all the Public safety gun laws on the books we need with the Prohibited person's list. Simple as that.

It needs to be unconstitutional to enact a law that is based on future actions.
If the criminal is not allowed to be in possession of any weapon what difference does it make what weapon it is?? There should be no law that restricts the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. If you are not on the prohibited person list you should be able to buy and own any firearm you want.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-08-2012, 2:17 PM
Would we Californian's be better off if there were a federal preemption of gun laws -- with no grandfathering in of existing laws?

Prima facie, it would seem so, as currently the most restrictive laws come down from our state.

But, is there a downside? For example, are bad laws easier to fight on a state level?

I've never been a big fan of concentration of power into the central government (Federalism.) I've been more in favor of states rights.

The non-uniformity of gun laws has negative consequences even to those who live in more free states. Example, a person from AZ drives to OR through CA and has a banned magazine or firearm, he commits a felony.

Frankly, I'd like to see all gun laws reset to pre GCA 1968 -- but, I know that's not going to happen.


Piker. :)

I'd like to see them re-set to pre-NFA of 1934. And I'm not so sure that this won't happen. In my lifetime.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
07-08-2012, 2:38 PM
There should be a law against legislation that has no foundation in reality.


You can thank the courts for the fact that unfounded laws remain in force. In particular, you can thank their invention of "rational basis" for that, combined with the fact that they've turned the 9th and 10th Amendments into dead letters (the 9th especially).


The court system has thrown away liberty as its guiding principle. Instead of simply extending full liberty to women and minorities in order to achieve equality, it has upheld the usurpation of liberty from everyone who previously had it (this is especially evident in the gun control laws, which had as their original purpose the usurpation of RKBA from minorities but which now serve to usurp RKBA from all). And thus, "equality" was achieved at the expense of liberty instead of with the preservation of liberty.

Yes, the legislature has an equal hand in that. The difference is that the legislature by definition restricts liberty, for it is a lawmaking body, and laws are restrictions on freedom very nearly by definition. The court system was intended from the outset to act as a check against the power of the legislature, which means by definition its purpose is to protect liberty. It has done no such thing, because it has shirked its responsibility. That we have a Supreme Court that upholds the 2nd Amendment at all is a freaking miracle.

Cali-Glock
07-08-2012, 6:03 PM
10th Amendment Baby!!! 99% of what the federal government is unconstitutional - please don't suggest they further expand their unconstitutional actions.

rogervzv
07-08-2012, 7:36 PM
Would we Californian's be better off if there were a federal preemption of gun laws -- with no grandfathering in of existing laws?

Prima facie, it would seem so, as currently the most restrictive laws come down from our state.

But, is there a downside? For example, are bad laws easier to fight on a state level?



Yes and yes. Basically we would get better gun laws right away, but a more difficult task of changing the laws that get passed that are violative of the second amendment.

Plus this would screw over a lot of states that are more liberal than the Feds usually are. (Think Texas, Arizona, etc.) Think Eric Holder, Fast & Furious, and the fact that we just came off of a binge where both houses of Congress were Democrat.

Manolito
07-08-2012, 7:45 PM
I would back a federal law that says no new laws will be enacted without removing two like laws from the books. We keep adding and adding insuring that you are guilty of something if they work hard enough at it.

eldonvieira
07-09-2012, 6:48 AM
If the courts won't uphold what is clearly written in our founding document what makes you think they will uphold a new law

mausercat
07-09-2012, 10:44 AM
I think that what we need is the equivalent of the Civil Rights Act for gun owners. The CRA outlawed poll taxes, seperate but equal and other jim crow laws. Well we gun owners (especially in California) are victims of firearm Jim Crow laws. The federal government needs to establish some basic firearm rights that states cannot violate. The right to have a CCW issued without arbitary discrection, the right to own AR-15 type weapons, the right to own handguns, the right to have high cap magazines, the right to buy ammo without being fingerprinted. The states will still have the ability to have sales of firearms go through background checks, but they can't close gun ranges by using lead as an excuse or pass licensing laws for firearm purchases. If you can pass a background test you should be able to buy a firearm. They can't require magazine safeties or drop tests and melting points for firearm. The law can be well thought out so it does not affect states that already have positive firearm laws.

1859sharps
07-10-2012, 10:45 AM
....I'd like to see them re-set to pre-NFA of 1934....

why think small, lets reset to 03-04-1789 ;)

POLICESTATE
07-10-2012, 10:48 AM
I tend to think that yes we would be better off. I think that States having the ability to restrict fundamental rights granted to us by a federal document (COTUS) seems... incorrect?

SilverTauron
07-10-2012, 11:07 AM
I tend to think that yes we would be better off. I think that States having the ability to restrict fundamental rights granted to us by a federal document (COTUS) seems... incorrect?

The problem as I view it is that you guys are the on the other side of the "States Rights" principle.

In most developed nations the national government sets nationwide gun control laws, and that's that.If a province in Australia or the UK dislikes the central government's extreme gun control laws,too bad so sad.

In the U.S. the Feds have a general list of gun policies which apply to all 50 states, and the states are left to their own devices as far as laws which apply in their borders.Wyoming has as much right to regulate guns in its territory as New York or California. In essence, gun control is left to those who reside in a state to decide for themselves. For most of America the citizens have decided to wholeheartedly embrace the RKBA via CCW permits and removal of bad laws like VA's One Gun a Month rule.

If we liken the RKBA to a coin, most states choose the light side of an individual right to keep and bear arms. Others, like California and New York have taken the opposite side. Just like Florida's residents have decided shall issue CCW is the way to go, most of New Jersey and California's residents wish to have nothing to do with the RKBA and are using their state's autonomy to enforce that will.

If we take away California's current ability to regulate guns to the brink of prohibition , we also compromise Vermont's ability to permit non-permitted open or concealed carry. We cannot use the Federal Government to change the situation in CA by force without risking the other side of the equation.

Dreaded Claymore
07-10-2012, 11:21 AM
I've never been a big fan of concentration of power into the central government (Federalism.) I've been more in favor of states rights.

A minor quibble: There is no such thing as "states' rights." States are not people, and they do not have rights. They are governments, and they have powers. It's right there in the Tenth Amendment.

The reason this is important is that a right is inherent in each person. It cannot be taken away, and the only policy decisions a society can make about a right is how to accomodate it. But society can make policy decisions about the powers of governments, including local state governments, because society creates the government.

What you're saying is that you think that the system will work better when more power is retained by local governments. What I'm saying is that calling it "states' rights" can confuse us into thinking that there's some reason, other than society's public policy decision, that it has to be that way.

POLICESTATE
07-10-2012, 11:21 AM
"You guys" WTF is THAT supposed to mean?? :rolleyes:

Yeah I see what you mean, however in my view the COTUS trumps all.

Fundamental rights are not a states rights or federal rights issue to me. To me fundamental rights are above both.

However sure, I get what you are saying, that the danger is that the fed gov could regulate firearms throughout the country. However they already do. Remember, the Federal Assault Weapons ban affected the entire country. California's laws only really affect CA citizens and visitors depending on circumstances. I would even go so far as to say that CA state law forbidding me as a CA citizen to buy a long arm in another state should be void because CA regulating my behavior beyond its borders is wrong.

How about 1A rights. Is there any preemption issues with those? In my view 1A and 2A are very similar except 1A got a full P&I and 2A did not, but still they are both fundamental rights.



The problem as I view it is that you guys are the on the other side of the "States Rights" principle.

In most developed nations the national government sets nationwide gun control laws, and that's that.If a province in Australia or the UK dislikes the central government's extreme gun control laws,too bad so sad.

In the U.S. the Feds have a general list of gun policies which apply to all 50 states, and the states are left to their own devices as far as laws which apply in their borders.Wyoming has as much right to regulate guns in its territory as New York or California. In essence, gun control is left to those who reside in a state to decide for themselves. For most of America the citizens have decided to wholeheartedly embrace the RKBA via CCW permits and removal of bad laws like VA's One Gun a Month rule.

If we liken the RKBA to a coin, most states choose the light side of an individual right to keep and bear arms. Others, like California and New York have taken the opposite side. Just like Florida's residents have decided shall issue CCW is the way to go, most of New Jersey and California's residents wish to have nothing to do with the RKBA and are using their state's autonomy to enforce that will.

If we take away California's current ability to regulate guns to the brink of prohibition , we also compromise Vermont's ability to permit non-permitted open or concealed carry. We cannot use the Federal Government to change the situation in CA by force without risking the other side of the equation.

Uxi
07-10-2012, 11:38 AM
I am an ardent Federalist but do believe that the BoR should be binding on all States as minimum standards to be in the Union, without the selective incorporation nonsense.

SilverTauron
07-10-2012, 11:42 AM
"You guys" WTF is THAT supposed to mean?? :rolleyes:


I do not live in CA. I was born there , and would like to return someday to a state which respects my right to self defense.


Yeah I see what you mean, however in my view the COTUS trumps all.

Fundamental rights are not a states rights or federal rights issue to me. To me fundamental rights are above both.


A fundamental right is only recognized when the people in a given state choose to do so. The current state of affairs in CA is due to millions of voters who do not own guns and believe the fundamental right to self defense is literally obsolete.How else can you interpret a comment like this :

This seems like such a reasonable bill, such a no-brainer, I’ve been nonplussed by the sturm and drang emanating from the gun advocate corner. I wonder about all these folks who are afraid to leave the house unescorted, without a lethal weapon by their side. I wonder what extra baggage, besides that rifle and ammo clip, they might be carrying. Murder doesn’t even make the top 10 causes of death in the US. In fact, murder at the hand of another doesn’t even beat suicide, and neither comes close to death by accident and death by disease.

-Karin Busse writing about her support of a Long Gun open carry ban, http://altadena.patch.com/articles/xxx-d91c61a5






However sure, I get what you are saying, that the danger is that the fed gov could regulate firearms throughout the country. However they already do. Remember, the Federal Assault Weapons ban affected the entire country.

While we do have a lot of Federal gun laws which make no sense and serve no purpose in enhancing public safety, note that its much different than the state of things in Europe.On that continent,in most nations the central government controls every facet of gun ownership from what ammo is bought for it, where its stored, HOW its stored, where its shot, where its used, and the consequences if those rules aren't followed to utmost precision. By comparison, in the US its completely possible for a gun owner who inherits their collection or buys non-NFA weapons P2P to never interact with the Federal government at all in exercising their right.



How about 1A rights. Is there any preemption issues with those? In my view 1A and 2A are very similar except 1A got a full P&I and 2A did not, but still they are both fundamental rights.


We come back to the problem of recognition. Free speech is a recognized right all over the country, but do note that it too is subject to the cultural and social mores of the state. If I say the word "yute" in west Texas and end up jailed because of a "misunderstanding" that led to a fistfight, a lawsuit against the court on the grounds of my 1A rights being infringed will be sent to the file cabinet marked "Trash".

If the local residents of a state don't recognize an individuals right to keep and bear arms, they will pass laws to enforce that denial of recognition.

Sure, there's no permits and such associated with the right to free speech, but the nature of the right lends itself to being free of such onerous restrictions. A firearm can be taxed, regulated, confiscated, or seized. A cop can't seize your tongue and read a serial number off of it, unless California's really gone down the tubes.

advocatusdiaboli
07-10-2012, 11:43 AM
Yes and yes. Basically we would get better gun laws right away, but a more difficult task of changing the laws that get passed that are violative of the second amendment.

Plus this would screw over a lot of states that are more liberal than the Feds usually are. (Think Texas, Arizona, etc.) Think Eric Holder, Fast & Furious, and the fact that we just came off of a binge where both houses of Congress were Democrat.

I disagree, we'd have a greater majority nationally for firearms rights than the in the left-coast state of California. So by in large it would be a win despite some drawbacks. No roster, no 10-round limit, no registration, no more ammo bans or bullet button attempts, no Aw laws beyond federal, and more. Clear progress on our right.

A-J
07-10-2012, 11:48 AM
IMO, As long as gun regulations are passed based on fear and other emotions rather than logic and without taking a look at whether the new law actually has an effect on the behavior being targeted, it really doesn't matter who is in charge of regulation. A bad decision is a bad decision.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-11-2012, 9:13 AM
why think small, lets reset to 03-04-1789 ;)


Indeed, why not?


The problem as I view it is that you guys are the on the other side of the "States Rights" principle.

In most developed nations the national government sets nationwide gun control laws, and that's that.If a province in Australia or the UK dislikes the central government's extreme gun control laws,too bad so sad.

In the U.S. the Feds have a general list of gun policies which apply to all 50 states, and the states are left to their own devices as far as laws which apply in their borders.Wyoming has as much right to regulate guns in its territory as New York or California. In essence, gun control is left to those who reside in a state to decide for themselves. For most of America the citizens have decided to wholeheartedly embrace the RKBA via CCW permits and removal of bad laws like VA's One Gun a Month rule.

If we liken the RKBA to a coin, most states choose the light side of an individual right to keep and bear arms. Others, like California and New York have taken the opposite side. Just like Florida's residents have decided shall issue CCW is the way to go, most of New Jersey and California's residents wish to have nothing to do with the RKBA and are using their state's autonomy to enforce that will.

If we take away California's current ability to regulate guns to the brink of prohibition , we also compromise Vermont's ability to permit non-permitted open or concealed carry. We cannot use the Federal Government to change the situation in CA by force without risking the other side of the equation.


The flaw in your argument is that we're not talking about "most developed nations." We're talking about the USA.

Which leads to your pointing out what "most of America" embraces. It is BECAUSE of the fact that most of America embraces freedom that having the 2A regulated by the Federal GOVT would be a good thing.


I am an ardent Federalist but do believe that the BoR should be binding on all States as minimum standards to be in the Union, without the selective incorporation nonsense.


Sadly, not until SCOTUS starts listening to Justice Thomas.


The Raisuli

dustoff31
07-11-2012, 9:16 AM
A fundamental right is only recognized when the people in a given state choose to do so. The current state of affairs in CA is due to millions of voters who do not own guns and believe the fundamental right to self defense is literally obsolete.

There is also the problem of those gunowners claiming to be vociferious supporters of the 2A, who willfully and knowlingly vote for antigun politicians due to their stance on other issues.

The first thought process is at least intellectually honest, if misguided. The second is just stupid, IMO.

Don29palms
07-11-2012, 3:23 PM
There is a federal preemption that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it han't meant anything to the government for a very long time.

littlejake
07-11-2012, 5:57 PM
There is a federal preemption that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it hasn't meant anything to the government for a very long time.

Yes, but pre Heller the anti-gun forces have claimed the militia clause (1st clause) restricted the right to mean a state's right to form a militia. The Heller decision said, the first clause does not limit the operative, 2nd clause. That was a big win. And it's an originalist interpretation. We have only two originalists on SCOTUS -- Justices Thomas and Scalia. I'd love to have 7 more just like them.

Then, the anti's said, well fine, but that only applies to the federal district -- D.C. That argument seems plain stupid on its face -- but, that's why we needed McDonald -- to have Heller extend to the states.

Now, we have, for the first time the 2A extending to the states.

wildhawker
07-11-2012, 6:48 PM
NRA couldn't get fed preemption done if they wanted to. They can't even unwind easier federal stuff (they "own" Congress, right?).

-Brandon

Don29palms
07-11-2012, 8:19 PM
Yes, but pre Heller the anti-gun forces have claimed the militia clause (1st clause) restricted the right to mean a state's right to form a militia. The Heller decision said, the first clause does not limit the operative, 2nd clause. That was a big win. And it's an originalist interpretation. We have only two originalists on SCOTUS -- Justices Thomas and Scalia. I'd love to have 7 more just like them.

Then, the anti's said, well fine, but that only applies to the federal district -- D.C. That argument seems plain stupid on its face -- but, that's why we needed McDonald -- to have Heller extend to the states.

Now, we have, for the first time the 2A extending to the states.

Our 2A privileges have been infringed on for so long and they're just getting worse here in the USSK. It would be very nice to see things turn around but I don't see it happening for a very long time. I hope I'm wrong.

SilverTauron
07-11-2012, 9:41 PM
Indeed, why not?





The flaw in your argument is that we're not talking about "most developed nations." We're talking about the USA.

Which leads to your pointing out what "most of America" embraces. It is BECAUSE of the fact that most of America embraces freedom that having the 2A regulated by the Federal GOVT would be a good thing.


The Raisuli

What vehicle of law could the Federal Government use for protecting the 2nd Amendment which couldn't be used against us?

It is more likely that a Federal pre-emption of the 2nd Amendment would be turned against everyone.Obama will not be the last corrupt shill to achieve election to POTUS. By enacting a Federal gun law provison, all we do is hand future gun control advocates the means of our own undoing.

Uxi
07-12-2012, 8:16 AM
Sadly, not until SCOTUS starts listening to Justice Thomas.


Indeed. Unfortunately, at this point, I'm thinking an Article V solution is more practical to just say "BoR Applies to the States."

Mulay El Raisuli
07-12-2012, 10:47 AM
What vehicle of law could the Federal Government use for protecting the 2nd Amendment which couldn't be used against us?

It is more likely that a Federal pre-emption of the 2nd Amendment would be turned against everyone.Obama will not be the last corrupt shill to achieve election to POTUS. By enacting a Federal gun law provison, all we do is hand future gun control advocates the means of our own undoing.


There is no vehicle of law preventing the Feds from doing so. My point was that the vast majority of politicians nationwide recognize the 2A. It is only in places where they're concentrated to where they make up the majority (the PRK, NJ, NYC & Chicago, which Rules the rest of IL), that the antis are able to impose their beliefs. To use an analogy, they can poison a pond or two, but they just don't have the ability to poison the ocean. They already know this. That's why they keep bleating about "local control." A nationwide standard would open the floodgates & wash their stupid ideas away.

That's why (to answer the original question) the PRK would be better off with a federal pre-emption of gun laws.


Indeed. Unfortunately, at this point, I'm thinking an Article V solution is more practical to just say "BoR Applies to the States."


There used to be a strong movement for a Convention. Is that effort dead?


The Raisuli

Renaissance Redneck
07-12-2012, 12:08 PM
Certainly a serious reading of the Constitution already suggests that the second amendment should trump any state law that seeks to limit it.

Imagine if a state decided to make laws restricting a citizen's right to choose a religion, or to limit speech. I seem to remember a historical reference of a state (Mass. ?) that had established a "state religion"; subsequently deemed unconstitutional. Why can't the same be said to be happening with the 2nd?

The ACLU is a joke. They consider the First and Fourth and Fifth Amendments as the real "important" civil liberties to defend, but they fail to aggressively advocate for our liberties under the Second and the Tenth. Too bad we can't get them to fight for our "other" civil liberties, rather than only the ones they LIKE!

SilverTauron
07-12-2012, 1:31 PM
There is no vehicle of law preventing the Feds from doing so. My point was that the vast majority of politicians nationwide recognize the 2A. It is only in places where they're concentrated to where they make up the majority (the PRK, NJ, NYC & Chicago, which Rules the rest of IL), that the antis are able to impose their beliefs. To use an analogy, they can poison a pond or two, but they just don't have the ability to poison the ocean. They already know this. That's why they keep bleating about "local control." A nationwide standard would open the floodgates & wash their stupid ideas away.

That's why (to answer the original question) the PRK would be better off with a federal pre-emption of gun laws.

The Raisuli

The "Local Control" argument is another red herring. True, it helps prop up the local efforts of the Feinsteins and Bloomburgs to continue their 2nd Amendment infringements, but such a policy helps the antis in a much more insidious manner. They know there will always be certain states which will give the one digit salute to any restrictive gun control law. Enter the "local control" regime-with individual cities free to ban guns as they see fit, no one with a CCW permit could be truly certain they were legal.Look at Illinois-in certain parts of the state driving with a cased and locked firearm in the trunk is a CRIMINAL offense. With people choosing a clean record versus being jailed on a gun charge they didn't know they were violating, its yet another way to discourage ownership of arms.

What that policy DOESN'T do is prop up their argument;for as the status quo is now the anti's are plenty secure in Sacramento and Albany without it.


National pre-emption wouldn't solve anything. Even if there was an Executive Order mandating repeal of the bogus laws in CA , we can bet our firstborn children the CA DOJ would have the lawsuit papers drafted before close of business. Bottom line, you cannot solve your anti-gun problem without solving the anti-gun people problem. So long as your neighbors think gun ownership is the same as criminal intent, your laws aren't changing no matter what Washington does for or against the RKBA.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-13-2012, 6:42 AM
The "Local Control" argument is another red herring. True, it helps prop up the local efforts of the Feinsteins and Bloomburgs to continue their 2nd Amendment infringements, but such a policy helps the antis in a much more insidious manner. They know there will always be certain states which will give the one digit salute to any restrictive gun control law. Enter the "local control" regime-with individual cities free to ban guns as they see fit, no one with a CCW permit could be truly certain they were legal.Look at Illinois-in certain parts of the state driving with a cased and locked firearm in the trunk is a CRIMINAL offense. With people choosing a clean record versus being jailed on a gun charge they didn't know they were violating, its yet another way to discourage ownership of arms.

What that policy DOESN'T do is prop up their argument;for as the status quo is now the anti's are plenty secure in Sacramento and Albany without it.


National pre-emption wouldn't solve anything. Even if there was an Executive Order mandating repeal of the bogus laws in CA , we can bet our firstborn children the CA DOJ would have the lawsuit papers drafted before close of business. Bottom line, you cannot solve your anti-gun problem without solving the anti-gun people problem. So long as your neighbors think gun ownership is the same as criminal intent, your laws aren't changing no matter what Washington does for or against the RKBA.


A national standard would eliminate the ability of individual cities to ban guns. It would also ban the ability of IL to play their games. CALDOJ would indeed file paper. And they would lose. Will there be people who think that guns=evil? Sure. Will that stop the law from changing. Nope.

This has been done before, during the other civil Rights fight. The 'anti-blacks' people problem didn't have to be solved first. Those people were the majority (of the voters) in their pond. But they were a minority nationwide. Those people couldn't stop national standards from being applied in that pond 40 years ago, & the people in 'Frisco & LA county won't be able to stop the 2A either.


The Raisuli

rt66paul
07-13-2012, 8:00 AM
If ALL laws had an expiration date, the lawmakers could do their job and re-introduce laws that work and the bad ones would drop out. How many laws contradict each other?

Uxi
07-13-2012, 8:25 AM
That speaks to a more basic issue: the system the Founders designed specifically has a bunch of checks of balances. The left largely ignorantly derides this as "gridlock." Gridlock was the point and specifically intended to be able to block unilaterally supported and contentious programs like Barrycare. Generally, speaking, there should be a consensus on making new laws.

We do perhaps need to make it easier to revoke bad laws. I like the idea of all budgetary items expiring but don't see why it shouldn't work in general. The entire body of law would too often get rubber stamped. The left needs to be made to realize the 2nd Amendment has never been lawfully repealed, even if they wanted to pretend it was. We're only halfway there on making them recognize it still exists. We need a bear case to SCOTUS before Barry can appoint another nominee

SilverTauron
07-13-2012, 8:44 AM
A national standard would eliminate the ability of individual cities to ban guns. It would also ban the ability of IL to play their games. CALDOJ would indeed file paper. And they would lose. Will there be people who think that guns=evil? Sure. Will that stop the law from changing. Nope.

A lawsuit wouldn't be an instant process. There would be some kind of "stay" on the enforceability of the national pre-emption law during the litigation process,which would take YEARS to run its course. In the meantime, business as usual for you guys and every other anti-gun area.

Remember, the district courts in anti-gun states are siding with the disbarment lobby. So we can reasonably assume an expensive court battle would ensue that would take years to conclude. At the end of it, assuming our side won the anti gun politicians-supported by the majority in the populations-would not waste time finding loopholes to maintain the status quo.

They'd pass legislation which would openly violate the pre-emption law or skirt it just enough to prevent any practical difference, forcing good people such as yourself to have to sue THEM to comply.Enter another lengthy court dance. Look at Chicago-Heller and McDonald already concretely ruled that the RKBA applies to the city government, and yet concealed carry has yet to grace the Windy City. Heck, unless you have $600 in disposable income to buy a gun AND jump through the permit hoops a handgun is still banned by dint of finances. D.C. is playing the same game.


This has been done before, during the other civil Rights fight. The 'anti-blacks' people problem didn't have to be solved first. Those people were the majority (of the voters) in their pond. But they were a minority nationwide. Those people couldn't stop national standards from being applied in that pond 40 years ago, & the people in 'Frisco & LA county won't be able to stop the 2A either.


The Raisuli

Slavery is a bad comparison, only because the Civil Rights Movement cap stoned literally centuries of strife in America regarding Slavery.No matter what corner of the nation you lived in or what skin color you had , the issue had some relevance and affect on you as an American resident.

By comparison, the individual RKBA hasn't legally existed in CA a decade yet. Gun control only directly affects the people who own and use guns, of whom are a slim minority in states like California. It took time to go from lynchings and "5/8ths of a man" to the "Civil Rights Act", and during which on multiple occasions the Federal Government nearly went to war-and did once- against individual states determined to resist change of the status quo at all cost.

It would take massive public support on a nationwide level to care enough about the anti-gun states' to force Washington to crack down on illegal gun laws , as DC did in the 60s against Jim Crow. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, there's no national consensus that the 2nd Amendment should apply to all places with equal force to that degree.Until that happens, don't expect Washington to bail you guys out.

kcbrown
07-13-2012, 11:07 AM
It would take massive public support on a nationwide level to care enough about the anti-gun states' to force Washington to crack down on illegal gun laws , as DC did in the 60s against Jim Crow. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, there's no national consensus that the 2nd Amendment should apply to all places with equal force to that degree.Until that happens, don't expect Washington to bail you guys out.

This is exactly why I believe it will be at least a decade, if not longer, before we even have usable shall-issue concealed carry in the anti-gun strongholds here in California.

The fact of the matter is that the civil rights movement was a national movement with a great deal of positive public exposure that was able to appeal to the population of the country at the time. It gained support of the mass media, and where the mass media leads, the masses follow.


This is most emphatically not the case for the 2nd Amendment movement. For us, the mass media is an opponent. Positive movement for us happens despite the mass media, not because of it. As a result, we have not yet been able to appeal to the general population of the country in such a way as to garner general support from it. And, frankly, there's a good chance that we won't be able to. At the end of the day, few people are going to regard the ability of the average person to carry a firearm in public as nearly as important as the fair treatment of people with colored skin.

Even in the states with the strongest support for the right to keep and bear arms, only a small percentage of people actually exercise that right in public.

Finally, another part of the problem is that the injustice we fight against is rather highly localized, at least in comparison with the injustice that the civil rights movement fought against. What we fight against occurs primarily in dense urban areas in a handful of states. As it happens, what we fight against affects a large number of people, but in a small area relative to the country as a whole. And, as it happens, the majority of the people so affected do not share our viewpoint -- things are the way they are precisely because that majority wants it that way, or at least doesn't care.


The end result of all that is that our fight is much, much harder than the fight the civil rights movement had on its hands. And it took anywhere from a couple of decades to a century, depending on when you start the clock, for the civil rights movement to succeed. Why should we believe it will take less time for us when the fight for us is notably more difficult?



That said, the whole SB 249 action shows that we can win, and is one of the reasons I believe we ultimately will, even if it takes a while.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-14-2012, 8:31 AM
A lawsuit wouldn't be an instant process. There would be some kind of "stay" on the enforceability of the national pre-emption law during the litigation process,which would take YEARS to run its course. In the meantime, business as usual for you guys and every other anti-gun area.


"you guys"???? Explain please.

What makes you think there would be any kind of a 'stay' on national pre-emption? Have there been any when it comes to Heller/McDonald?


Remember, the district courts in anti-gun states are siding with the disbarment lobby. So we can reasonably assume an expensive court battle would ensue that would take years to conclude. At the end of it, assuming our side won the anti gun politicians-supported by the majority in the populations-would not waste time finding loopholes to maintain the status quo.

They'd pass legislation which would openly violate the pre-emption law or skirt it just enough to prevent any practical difference, forcing good people such as yourself to have to sue THEM to comply.Enter another lengthy court dance. Look at Chicago-Heller and McDonald already concretely ruled that the RKBA applies to the city government, and yet concealed carry has yet to grace the Windy City. Heck, unless you have $600 in disposable income to buy a gun AND jump through the permit hoops a handgun is still banned by dint of finances. D.C. is playing the same game.


Games are being played, true. But, you miss the point when it comes to the lack of "carry" in Chicago. Heller/McDonald didn't limit the Right to "in the home." But, they did make "in the home" clearly protected. As a result, games are NOT being played in re that. Even IL isn't claiming that the Right doesn't apply in the home. The fight there is over. We still wait for "carry" because SCOTUS has yet to make it clear that the Right really does apply outside the home as well.


Slavery is a bad comparison, only because the Civil Rights Movement cap stoned literally centuries of strife in America regarding Slavery.No matter what corner of the nation you lived in or what skin color you had , the issue had some relevance and affect on you as an American resident.

By comparison, the individual RKBA hasn't legally existed in CA a decade yet. Gun control only directly affects the people who own and use guns, of whom are a slim minority in states like California. It took time to go from lynchings and "5/8ths of a man" to the "Civil Rights Act", and during which on multiple occasions the Federal Government nearly went to war-and did once- against individual states determined to resist change of the status quo at all cost.

It would take massive public support on a nationwide level to care enough about the anti-gun states' to force Washington to crack down on illegal gun laws , as DC did in the 60s against Jim Crow. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, there's no national consensus that the 2nd Amendment should apply to all places with equal force to that degree.Until that happens, don't expect Washington to bail you guys out.


Here, you're wrong. There IS "massive public support on a nationwide level" for the 2A. Some 40 states have "shall-issue" on the books. As you point out, that's not the case here in the PRK, but the question is would we in the PRK be better off if a federal standard were applied? Yes, because instead of the antis in the PRK being opposed by, well, no one really, they would be opposed by 80 Senators from those "shall-issue" states. Along with the Reps from those states. And of course, all the tools (precedents) applied to that other civil Rights fight can be applied to this one.


This is exactly why I believe it will be at least a decade, if not longer, before we even have usable shall-issue concealed carry in the anti-gun strongholds here in California.

The fact of the matter is that the civil rights movement was a national movement with a great deal of positive public exposure that was able to appeal to the population of the country at the time. It gained support of the mass media, and where the mass media leads, the masses follow.


This is most emphatically not the case for the 2nd Amendment movement. For us, the mass media is an opponent. Positive movement for us happens despite the mass media, not because of it. As a result, we have not yet been able to appeal to the general population of the country in such a way as to garner general support from it. And, frankly, there's a good chance that we won't be able to. At the end of the day, few people are going to regard the ability of the average person to carry a firearm in public as nearly as important as the fair treatment of people with colored skin.

Even in the states with the strongest support for the right to keep and bear arms, only a small percentage of people actually exercise that right in public.

Finally, another part of the problem is that the injustice we fight against is rather highly localized, at least in comparison with the injustice that the civil rights movement fought against. What we fight against occurs primarily in dense urban areas in a handful of states. As it happens, what we fight against affects a large number of people, but in a small area relative to the country as a whole. And, as it happens, the majority of the people so affected do not share our viewpoint -- things are the way they are precisely because that majority wants it that way, or at least doesn't care.


The end result of all that is that our fight is much, much harder than the fight the civil rights movement had on its hands. And it took anywhere from a couple of decades to a century, depending on when you start the clock, for the civil rights movement to succeed. Why should we believe it will take less time for us when the fight for us is notably more difficult?



That said, the whole SB 249 action shows that we can win, and is one of the reasons I believe we ultimately will, even if it takes a while.


You contradict yourself. We win "in spite" of opposition from the media, yet we need the media? In any event, you're wrong too. In addition to there being massive public support, the media is starting to support us as well. Have you not seen how news articles about guns are actually balanced now? Sometimes even supportive of the Right? Not in all cases, but this is increasingly the case. Which shows that when to comes to winning hearts & minds, we are winning. Good sense (REAL good sense) does eventually prevail.

Further, it doesn't matter if only a small percentage of people actually carry. What matters is how many support the Right to do so. And the answer to that is: most of them.

Again, yes, the majority in a few small ponds are opposed to us. But that still doesn't matter when the pond merges with the ocean. The majority of We The People nationwide agree with us. Which is why, again, we here in the PRK will be much better off if we had that nationwide standard enforced here.


The Raisuli

SilverTauron
07-14-2012, 9:50 AM
"you guys"???? Explain please.

What makes you think there would be any kind of a 'stay' on national pre-emption? Have there been any when it comes to Heller/McDonald?


There is now a stay on Maryland's May Issue CCW process after a favorable ruling against that states "Good and Substantial Cause" law. At this point the MD State Police is returning all CCW applications that don't have G&SC included until the stay expires and new legislation can be drafted.



Games are being played, true. But, you miss the point when it comes to the lack of "carry" in Chicago. Heller/McDonald didn't limit the Right to "in the home." But, they did make "in the home" clearly protected. As a result, games are NOT being played in re that. Even IL isn't claiming that the Right doesn't apply in the home. The fight there is over. We still wait for "carry" because SCOTUS has yet to make it clear that the Right really does apply outside the home as well.

It seems you have missed my point. Chicago didn't toss out their unconstitutional infringements right after the ruling;instead, they had to be dragged into court like a repeat offender to get them to abide by the SCOTUS' ruling!By my count the City of Chicago has lost three lawsuits since Heller/Mcdonald , and it still costs $400 to get a permit. The situation in Washington D.C.'s not much different. In both cities you can exercise your RKBA in the home-as long as you have $1000 to buy the gun, ammo, and city/state permit process plus mandated training.

Brass tacks, even if the SCOTUS ruled CCW was incorporated into the RKBA California's government would NOT throw up their hands and go "o, woe is I". The state government would work through the weekend passing emergency legislation mandating that a CCW permit now costs the end applicant $1500 plus references and employer permission,for one example.With the media firmly sitting on the side of the Brady Campaign, there's not much the rest of America can do to stop your politicians from passing laws to work around the SCOTUS ruling as Chicago and D.C. have done. You would be left to do what is already necessary policy, that is fire up the litigation machine and drag your government into the court chambers.




Here, you're wrong. There IS "massive public support on a nationwide level" for the 2A. Some 40 states have "shall-issue" on the books. As you point out, that's not the case here in the PRK, but the question is would we in the PRK be better off if a federal standard were applied? Yes, because instead of the antis in the PRK being opposed by, well, no one really, they would be opposed by 80 Senators from those "shall-issue" states. Along with the Reps from those states. And of course, all the tools (precedents) applied to that other civil Rights fight can be applied to this one.


You are ignoring the other side of the equation. Yes there is significant support for the RKBA in America,but there is also significant support for gun control as well. The populations of urban IL, NJ, NY, MD, Hawaii, CA,MA,RI, number in the tens of millions put together, and they are not moving out of the country anytime soon. To this teeming mass of people, there is no reason for a citizen to "NEED" a gun on a public street. These people have national representatives too;this is a major population large enough to make and break political careers. If gun control laws for CA resided with D.C., nothing would change. Either the legislature would deadlock and nothing good or bad would come of the enterprise-or the states mentioned would use their power to force their agenda on the rest of America as they did with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.



You contradict yourself. We win "in spite" of opposition from the media, yet we need the media? In any event, you're wrong too. In addition to there being massive public support, the media is starting to support us as well. Have you not seen how news articles about guns are actually balanced now? Sometimes even supportive of the Right? Not in all cases, but this is increasingly the case. Which shows that when to comes to winning hearts & minds, we are winning. Good sense (REAL good sense) does eventually prevail.


Yes we do "need" the mainstream media. The unwashed masses who let Channel 7 do their thinking for them are the ones who buy into the hype about assault weapons being a dangerous threat in California to begin with. There's a good reason why the media , more or less everywhere, has at best been neutral about the RKBA; as a reporter, you cant sell a news piece showing responsible gun ownership. It would be so boring the viewers would fall asleep in their chairs. That ain't good for ratings, which in turn aint good for advertising revenue.

A yellow journalism hit piece like the "Bullet Button" broadcast, however, draws viewers with the time-honored allure of danger and guns. "BEHOLD!GUNZ ARE EVIL!" (flash cut to police crime tape and bloody sidewalks)
"ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE KILLING OUR KIDS"(flash cut to cute 4 year old and stock footage of a Somali pirate shooting an AKM)
"LEGISLATURE PASSING LAW TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE"
(Flash cut to empty suit discussing what they're doing to keep people safe despite the all-powerful deity called the NRA)
"THIS IS CHANNEL 7 WITH OUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT"

Now ad revenue is up, people are watching the broadcast, and the reporters and station gets more prestige if a new law & controversy is generated because of their hit piece. For their part the casual voter thinks if the state senator and the news station "professionals" say AK's and AR15s are bad , they're probably right and should vote accordingly.

As long as the average person still watches the news, you'll need the media. So long as the current media infrastructure is in place gun owners will always be considered a group of proto-criminals with the reputation of Afghan Mujaheddin.

Good sense will prevail, eventually. But that takes decades. As stated above, it took at the shortest calculation 50 years for the Civil Rights Movement to enact concrete legislation. California's enjoyed the RKBA not even 10 years yet.



Further, it doesn't matter if only a small percentage of people actually carry. What matters is how many support the Right to do so. And the answer to that is: most of them.

Again, yes, the majority in a few small ponds are opposed to us. But that still doesn't matter when the pond merges with the ocean. The majority of We The People nationwide agree with us. Which is why, again, we here in the PRK will be much better off if we had that nationwide standard enforced here.


The Raisuli
The People nationwide could give a rat's bunghole about California and other anti-gun strongholds. A lot of people who believe in the Constitutional right to RKBA also believe in the sovereign right of a state's residents to decide matters of law with limited input from Washington. As such, the same guys in Wyoming, Texas, and Idaho among others that you are relying on for support won't lift a finger to help you. It would be one thing if a military junta were illegally in place at Sacramento banning things without a mandate, but none of the anti gun politicos shot their way into the Capitol with tanks and bullets. They were freely elected by the People of California without duress or force. The fact that Diane Feinstein is anti-gun is not some kind of unplanned accident, but the very intent of why she's elected by her constituents.

THERE is the source of the problem, and it is there which lies the only long term solution. The majority of the people of CA willingly want to surrender their right to keep and bear arms, as it would seem most of them view the 2nd Amendment at best as an obsolete relic, and at worse an abomination upon the USC. Thus, as far as "Free America" is concerned this is a bed you all have made for yourselves.

Don't like it? Since gun owners in CA are the minority the solutions are, in order of time necessary.

Move out
File lawsuits.
Change enough minds to vote out the current political reps.

An imposition from Washington isn't a practical solution. At best, its a stopgap. At worst it causes the rest of the US to be like California, instead of CA being like the rest of the US.

mag360
07-14-2012, 12:26 PM
one thing I would realllllllly like to find out is what % of comments regarding an anti-gun bill are actually in support of it. I do not believe that in 2012, with gun ownership at its highest levels ever, even in CA that they get comments in excess of single digits percentage wise on bills such as the LEO "roster exempt ppt ban", or SB249, or last years SB124, etc.

kcbrown
07-14-2012, 3:18 PM
You contradict yourself. We win "in spite" of opposition from the media, yet we need the media?


No, we do not need the media in order to win, we need it in order to win quickly. It is in part because the media is opposed to us that I believe we're looking at a decades-long fight.



In any event, you're wrong too. In addition to there being massive public support, the media is starting to support us as well. Have you not seen how news articles about guns are actually balanced now? Sometimes even supportive of the Right? Not in all cases, but this is increasingly the case.


From the national mainstream media? Where?



Which shows that when to comes to winning hearts & minds, we are winning. Good sense (REAL good sense) does eventually prevail.


There's winning hearts and minds, and then there's winning hearts and minds. I think part of the problem is that you don't appear to understand the battlefield (or, alternatively, I don't! We'll see...).

To start with, I suspect you may be confusing geographic area covered with population. They are not the same thing.

The right to keep and bear arms in public is viewed in a positive way in most areas, but because population is so concentrated in urban areas, coverage of most of the area of the country does not necessarily get you support from the majority of the population.

The right to keep and bear arms in public is not viewed in a positive way in anti-gun strongholds, and those are the most highly populated areas of the country.


Furthermore, it is not securing the right for those who support it that we're after here. If that were what was at stake, this would be a much easier fight. No, the problem is that what we're after is securing the right for groups of people who do not want it and who, in fact, believe the rest of the country shouldn't have it. That's a harder thing to do, because it will, at first glance, appear to go against the notion of self-determination (it doesn't, really, but you have to explain that because most people are not used to thinking in terms of real rights but in terms of decisions).



Further, it doesn't matter if only a small percentage of people actually carry. What matters is how many support the Right to do so. And the answer to that is: most of them.


That would matter if the right were under attack in the areas that those people live in. But that's precisely the problem: they already have the right for themselves. The problem for us is not one of gaining support for securing the right for those who support it, it's for securing the right for those who don't believe in it and actually oppose it.

And that is a much tougher sell, because now you have to convince people that they should support making available a right to those who denounce it.



Again, yes, the majority in a few small ponds are opposed to us.


They are not "small" ponds, they are the largest ponds in the country by population.



But that still doesn't matter when the pond merges with the ocean. The majority of We The People nationwide agree with us. Which is why, again, we here in the PRK will be much better off if we had that nationwide standard enforced here.


I'm not disagreeing with the notion that we in the anti-gun strongholds would be better off with a nationwide standard enforced here, as long as the nature of the standard defined a floor and not a ceiling on the right.

kcbrown
07-14-2012, 3:39 PM
An imposition from Washington isn't a practical solution. At best, its a stopgap. At worst it causes the rest of the US to be like California, instead of CA being like the rest of the US.

An imposition from Washington can be a practical solution, but it would require the feds to actually intervene with real threat of force when the anti-gun strongholds inevitably resist, as the feds did during the civil rights fight.

And I don't think the country has that kind of political will. This is where the difference between a downtrodden black person who is being discriminated against in every way and a gun owner who "merely" can't carry in public becomes important. It's easy to rally public support for the downtrodden black person whose every fundamental right is being violated. It's much harder to rally the same kind of support for someone whose only right that is being infringed is his right to carry a dangerous weapon in public, and only because he "chooses" to live where he does.


And that is why this is going to be a decades-long fight for us. Our job is harder than that of the civil rights movement, not easier. Winning in the Supreme Court is of no use while the lower courts and target governments continue to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings, and they will continue to ignore the Supreme Court as long as they can actually get away with it. And they can get away with it as long as the federal court system is not willing to prove that it will stick guns to the heads of the courts and governments and threaten to pull the trigger if those courts and governments don't fall in line.

SilverTauron
07-14-2012, 6:02 PM
I'm not disagreeing with the notion that we in the anti-gun strongholds would be better off with a nationwide standard enforced here, as long as the nature of the standard defined a floor and not a ceiling on the right.

This is why I say Washington pre-emption is impractical. As you said, there isn't political will for the Feds to send Deputy U.S. Marshalls to the police stations and gun stores of anti gun states to ensure a Federal protection of the RKBA is enforced. As it stands now NY and NJ airports deliberately violate the FOPA by arresting any non-resident checking in a gun . The reaction of anti-gun states to a Federal mandate for the RKBA would be two words:

"F**k You".

kcbrown
07-14-2012, 7:12 PM
This is why I say Washington pre-emption is impractical. As you said, there isn't political will for the Feds to send Deputy U.S. Marshalls to the police stations and gun stores of anti gun states to ensure a Federal protection of the RKBA is enforced. As it stands now NY and NJ airports deliberately violate the FOPA by arresting any non-resident checking in a gun . The reaction of anti-gun states to a Federal mandate for the RKBA would be two words:

"F**k You".

Exactly. I think we're in nearly complete agreement here.

The one difference is that federal preemption may be worth having anyway, because while the feds might not have the will to enforce it upon rebelling states immediately after passage, it might grow the balls to do so later on. Not that such is likely, mind you.


The problem here is that modern governments are oriented around restricting the freedom of the citizenry. They are not oriented around protecting that freedom. Protection of freedom requires that governments essentially be willing to throw "their own" under the bus. And that simply does not happen anymore except in the words on the paper generated by courts. Until the courts are willing to do more than just talk, we're not really going to get anywhere to speak of.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-15-2012, 5:36 AM
Silver Tauron & KCBrown; I think you both have a bad case of BGOS. You've both gone pretty far afield & have missed the important parts of the world as it is. Let me then simplify things a bit.

Take a look at Yee's effort to ban Bullet Button rifles. He has a real good shot at doing so. Its certainly taking a major effort to stop him. Then take a look at the nationwide picture. Where the AWB died 8 YEARS ago. Where no one, not even Dianne & Babs is even thinking about reintroducing it. Where that sort of thing is regarded as the "third rail" of politics. Where the antis wail & gnash their teeth at the power of the NRA.

Which environment would be better for us here in California?


The Raisuli

SilverTauron
07-15-2012, 7:18 AM
Take a look at Yee's effort to ban Bullet Button rifles. He has a real good shot at doing so. Its certainly taking a major effort to stop him. Then take a look at the nationwide picture. Where the AWB died 8 YEARS ago. Where no one, not even Dianne & Babs is even thinking about reintroducing it. Where that sort of thing is regarded as the "third rail" of politics. Where the antis wail & gnash their teeth at the power of the NRA.

Which environment would be better for us here in California?


The Raisuli
Yet after the Giffords incident, Dianne Feinstein partnered with the "Usual Suspects" in offering a national magazine capacity ban which wasn't voted on. New York State's legislature just passed Microstamping.

Need we forget about a President who's dodging inquiries about a little problem south of the border regarding the illicit transfer of traceable guns to the cartels?

By no means am I saying the sky is falling or that the national stage is as bad as California's, but we are a VERY long way from universal acceptance of the 2nd Amendment by the Federal Government. The efforts of states recognizing the RKBA have taken place almost entirely at the STATE level,from the voters electing leaders who pass and sign pro RKBA legislation from the bottom up, not by Federal fiat from the top down.
Wisconsin is an ideal example of this-the people wanted CCW and the legislature was in favor, but their stick in the mud liberal governor vetoed the first try around. Next election cycle the voters fired his infringing behind ,and his conservative replacement signed the newest bill for CCW into law.

rt66paul
07-15-2012, 4:35 PM
The people that run the world(including many in the US), do NOT want the public to own firearms. In countries where they have been legal, they are slowly, but surely restricting public ownership by types and/or location.
Don't be fooled into believing that the right wing here in the US wants the public to have firearms - they are allowing us to believe it, some are actually for it, but even ex Texas governors have lobbied and allowed even more restrictions.
Read what Jefferson had to say and then read it again.

As a loyal American, I still believe that the LEO on the street should NOT be allowed to carry any weapon that a legal citizen is restricted from owning. The fact that we have allowed them to do so tells us volumes about where this country is headed.
The gun grabbers used an incident where the bad guys had illegal weapons and state of the art military weapons and armor to give more firepower to the police and take ours away.
I do believe that most LEOs will stand up for the good citizens.....but the leadership is political and will do what they are told and make those orders as well as order there men to stand down and let the riot run its course.(Who could forget the Reginald Denny incident?)

kcbrown
07-15-2012, 8:57 PM
Silver Tauron & KCBrown; I think you both have a bad case of BGOS.


I don't have a bad case of BGOS. I have a bad case of realism. They're not the same thing.



You've both gone pretty far afield & have missed the important parts of the world as it is. Let me then simplify things a bit.

Take a look at Yee's effort to ban Bullet Button rifles. He has a real good shot at doing so. Its certainly taking a major effort to stop him. Then take a look at the nationwide picture. Where the AWB died 8 YEARS ago. Where no one, not even Dianne & Babs is even thinking about reintroducing it. Where that sort of thing is regarded as the "third rail" of politics. Where the antis wail & gnash their teeth at the power of the NRA.

Which environment would be better for us here in California?


You completely miss our point, which is that even if the federal government enacts the legislation you speak of, it hasn't the spine to enforce it against state and local governments. And if you don't believe me, then you need to explain why FOPA hasn't been enforced in that very same manner.

That is the realism I have such a bad case of. We don't need to speculate whether or not such a law would be enforced -- we already know it won't be, precisely because there already exist similar laws that are not enforced now.

stix213
07-15-2012, 9:55 PM
I'd rather see a law that finds lawmakers financially or even criminally liable if they pass or sign a law later ruled to be unconstitutional by the supreme court.

The government should be giving the rights protected in the constitution a wide berth, instead of seeing how razor thin close they can get to them.

A lot of problems would disappear if a law like that were on the books.

SilverTauron
07-15-2012, 10:33 PM
I'd rather see a law that finds lawmakers financially or even criminally liable if they pass or sign a law later ruled to be unconstitutional by the supreme court.

The government should be giving the rights protected in the constitution a wide berth, instead of seeing how razor thin close they can get to them.

A lot of problems would disappear if a law like that were on the books.

The law of unintended consequences renders this well intentioned thought moot. Court cases take time, and with election cycles being what they are anti-gun politicians can sign legislation and finish their term well before an adverse ruling comes down the pipe. The legal bill then becomes the next guy's problem.

kcbrown
07-16-2012, 1:33 AM
Yet after the Giffords incident, Dianne Feinstein partnered with the "Usual Suspects" in offering a national magazine capacity ban which wasn't voted on. New York State's legislature just passed Microstamping.


Correction: the assembly passed microstamping. It might pass the senate there, or it might not. I have no idea. The senate is 53% Republican, while the assembly is 67% Democrat.

I could see it going either way on that basis, although if their "Republicans" are like ours in California, then I suspect it's more likely than not to pass.

Gray Peterson
07-16-2012, 1:42 AM
Yet after the Giffords incident, Dianne Feinstein partnered with the "Usual Suspects" in offering a national magazine capacity ban which wasn't voted on. New York State's legislature just passed Microstamping.

The New York Assembly did. It died in the Senate. They don't have the votes there.

Wisconsin is an ideal example of this-the people wanted CCW and the legislature was in favor, but their stick in the mud liberal governor vetoed the first try around. Next election cycle the voters fired his infringing behind ,and his conservative replacement signed the newest bill for CCW into law.

That's not correct either. CCW in Wisconsin was an over decade long experience.

First was the opposition of Governor Tommy Thompson, and the Republicans in the State House and Senate followed his lead.

Then when Thomson resigned in 2001 to join the Bush administration, his replacement, Scott McCallum was willing to sign a CCW bill. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala kept killing the bill, to the point of skipping by it on point of order in violation of Senate rules. Mr. Chvala was eventually convicted in a corruption scandal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chvala) I'm sure if CCW advocates had handed him 30K cash he would have scheduled a vote, but CCW advocates in that state probably would not do that (it's criminal, and it's unethical too)

Governor Jim Doyle defeated Scott McCallum, partly because the brother of the former Governor Thompson (Ed Thompson) ran also and took 10 percent of the votes. Nearly all of that vote was from McCallum, who lost.

Governor Jim Doyle vetoed the CCW bill twice, both times doing things like promising a prison build in the Legislator's districts and various kinds of arm twisting. The veto override the first time around was killed in the Assembly by a co-sponsor who turncoated. He was later rewarded with a Judgeship on Wisconsin Court of Appeals (http://www.wicourts.gov/courts/appeals/judges/sherman.htm).

The second veto override in 2007 had two different turncoats in the Assembly. One of them, Terry Van Akkeren, was defeated in 2010. The other, John Steinbrink, was not defeated (he's still in the Wisconsin Assembly), however he voted yes to the 2011 carry bill.

Scott Walker could have ran in 2006, but he didn't because of the Doyle machine. Doyle was considering running for Governor in 2010, but he decided against it in late 2009.

I think much of the 2010 election had more to do with people being pissed at Doyle and Milwaukee in general. 130,000 people have gotten their carry licenses in the first 9 months of it....

Just to make clear: Doyle was not defeated for re-election, even after the arm twisting of two veto overrides for CCW there. Gun owners could not muster enough strength of outrage for 2006. The Republican Party in general was not exactly a population brand nationwide at that time....

stix213
07-16-2012, 3:46 AM
The law of unintended consequences renders this well intentioned thought moot. Court cases take time, and with election cycles being what they are anti-gun politicians can sign legislation and finish their term well before an adverse ruling comes down the pipe. The legal bill then becomes the next guy's problem.

Have the law still demand fines or jail time regardless if they are still in office. If the former politician still had to do a 30 day stint in the county for an unconstitutional law he pushed through while in office, jail time he would be facing even though he had long left office, the law would still have its desired effect on chilling laws written to bump right up against constitutional rights.

Right now the current system of the legislature able to throw whatever laws it can against the constitution with no ramifications, in hopes the judicial branch at least allows a few of them to stick, seems to me to be part of the problem.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-16-2012, 7:57 AM
Yet after the Giffords incident, Dianne Feinstein partnered with the "Usual Suspects" in offering a national magazine capacity ban which wasn't voted on. New York State's legislature just passed Microstamping.

Need we forget about a President who's dodging inquiries about a little problem south of the border regarding the illicit transfer of traceable guns to the cartels?

By no means am I saying the sky is falling or that the national stage is as bad as California's, but we are a VERY long way from universal acceptance of the 2nd Amendment by the Federal Government. The efforts of states recognizing the RKBA have taken place almost entirely at the STATE level,from the voters electing leaders who pass and sign pro RKBA legislation from the bottom up, not by Federal fiat from the top down.
Wisconsin is an ideal example of this-the people wanted CCW and the legislature was in favor, but their stick in the mud liberal governor vetoed the first try around. Next election cycle the voters fired his infringing behind ,and his conservative replacement signed the newest bill for CCW into law.


Yes, 'big fish' in 'small ponds' have fought freedom. They get away with this BECAUSE they're in those 'small ponds.' This does not in any way correlate to the 'ocean' of the USA.

Regardless of how recognition of the 2A came about, its a fact that the 2A is indeed recognized by the majority of states. Which is why things are better in the 'ocean' than they are here (or in the other very intransigent ponds).

And that Feinstein's couldn't even get her latest idea voted on should tell you all you need to know about how much better things are in the 'ocean' of national politics then they are here in the 'pond' of the PRK.


I don't have a bad case of BGOS. I have a bad case of realism. They're not the same thing.




You completely miss our point, which is that even if the federal government enacts the legislation you speak of, it hasn't the spine to enforce it against state and local governments. And if you don't believe me, then you need to explain why FOPA hasn't been enforced in that very same manner.

That is the realism I have such a bad case of. We don't need to speculate whether or not such a law would be enforced -- we already know it won't be, precisely because there already exist similar laws that are not enforced now.


Two points in reply:

1. Even with the weakness of the FOPA at present, things are still better on the national level than they are here in the PRK. This was the question posed, after all.

2. It is at present that the FOPA & other protections of the Right are weak. The Federal Courts are coming around. Yes, they're not coming around as quickly as they should, but coming around they are.

You acknowledged this before. You think it will decades for all of them to do their job. I don't. McDonald was only 2 years ago & there's still that annoying little 'only in the home' thingie getting in the way. But even with that error, we are still stronger (at the national level) than we were 3 years ago. HUGE progress has been made. More is to come.

Prediction, SCOTUS will take up a case in the next session that will define "and bear" (I.E., outside the home) fully & completely by the end of that session (June 2013). When that happens, you're going to see just how quickly the Right is restored across the Land.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
07-16-2012, 6:09 PM
Two points in reply:

1. Even with the weakness of the FOPA at present, things are still better on the national level than they are here in the PRK. This was the question posed, after all.


Well, yeah, there can be no disputing that. But just because it's better on a national level doesn't mean that it's possible to use that to make it better on a state and local level here in California and in other anti-gun strongholds.



2. It is at present that the FOPA & other protections of the Right are weak. The Federal Courts are coming around. Yes, they're not coming around as quickly as they should, but coming around they are.


Where's the evidence for this? And in any case, the courts alone are not the problem. The problem is with the determination to enforce the national law against the state and local governments. As I see it, that determination is nearly nonexistent. There's plenty of determination to enforce the national law against private entities, but governments are different, because to enforce a law against a government is to enforce it against one of "their own kind".

Remember, it took deployment of the national guard to get the anti-civil-rights states to fall in line during the civil rights movement. Where's the determination on the part of the federal government to use that kind of force against anti-gun states and localities? Sorry, but FOPA is prima facie evidence that the will to take that kind of action just isn't there.



You acknowledged this before. You think it will decades for all of them to do their job. I don't. McDonald was only 2 years ago & there's still that annoying little 'only in the home' thingie getting in the way. But even with that error, we are still stronger (at the national level) than we were 3 years ago. HUGE progress has been made. More is to come.


But very little of that progress can be directly attributed to Heller and McDonald. Most of it seems to be secondary effects from those, such as increased demand for the right in states that already respect it (e.g., states going with Constitutional carry).

There has been some progress in the courts, but it is slow going. But worse, anti-gun strongholds are ignoring the courts for the most part, at least when the courts side against them, which is somewhat rare. Chicago is a perfect example of that. Look at what has happened with Ezell.



Prediction, SCOTUS will take up a case in the next session that will define "and bear" (I.E., outside the home) fully & completely by the end of that session (June 2013). When that happens, you're going to see just how quickly the Right is restored across the Land.


Oh, I have no doubt we'll see how quickly it's restored across the land. But I expect it will be very slow to be restored.

And I have history on my side on this. Look how long it took to get desegregation alone in place in the worst-offending parts of the country during the civil rights movement. Brown v Board of Education was decided in 1954, but it wasn't until 1969, with Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, that desegregation really got going.

Look at NAACP v Alabama to see an example of what lower courts can do with Supreme Court decisions they don't like.


Yes, we will indeed see how quickly the right gets restored. I think it'll be like molasses.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-17-2012, 7:04 AM
Well, yeah, there can be no disputing that. But just because it's better on a national level doesn't mean that it's possible to use that to make it better on a state and local level here in California and in other anti-gun strongholds.


Yes, it does. Political capitol is like any other capitol. There's only so much of it to spend. At present, we're spending HUGE amounts of it to defeat Yee, who's pushing for something that couldn't even be attempted on the national stage.

Keep in mind that "better" doesn't mean we're going to be holding hands around a campfire, singing Kum-by-ya & farting rainbows. "Better" means that we won't have to waste time on PRK-only issues. "Better" means that every victory here would help the national effort. The reverse is also true. Every victory elsewhere would have value (effect) here. Would things be better in the PRK if we didn't have to waste time, effort & political capitol on nonsense? The answer is, of course, yes. Does that mean that the fight would go quicker as well? Also, of course, yes.


Where's the evidence for this? And in any case, the courts alone are not the problem. The problem is with the determination to enforce the national law against the state and local governments. As I see it, that determination is nearly nonexistent. There's plenty of determination to enforce the national law against private entities, but governments are different, because to enforce a law against a government is to enforce it against one of "their own kind".

Remember, it took deployment of the national guard to get the anti-civil-rights states to fall in line during the civil rights movement. Where's the determination on the part of the federal government to use that kind of force against anti-gun states and localities? Sorry, but FOPA is prima facie evidence that the will to take that kind of action just isn't there.


What makes you think that level of force is needed?


But very little of that progress can be directly attributed to Heller and McDonald. Most of it seems to be secondary effects from those, such as increased demand for the right in states that already respect it (e.g., states going with Constitutional carry).


A secondary effect is still an effect. And a fight fought on the national stage only has to be fought once, presuming preemption.


There has been some progress in the courts, but it is slow going. But worse, anti-gun strongholds are ignoring the courts for the most part, at least when the courts side against them, which is somewhat rare. Chicago is a perfect example of that. Look at what has happened with Ezell.


Again, happening in a pond because it's a pond & the national tools aren't in place yet.


Oh, I have no doubt we'll see how quickly it's restored across the land. But I expect it will be very slow to be restored.

And I have history on my side on this. Look how long it took to get desegregation alone in place in the worst-offending parts of the country during the civil rights movement. Brown v Board of Education was decided in 1954, but it wasn't until 1969, with Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, that desegregation really got going.

Look at NAACP v Alabama to see an example of what lower courts can do with Supreme Court decisions they don't like.


Yes, we will indeed see how quickly the right gets restored. I think it'll be like molasses.


The difference, again, is that the fight for those other civil rights has given us the tools to use in this fight for civil rights. We don't have to wait for the wheel to be re-invented.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
07-17-2012, 8:03 PM
Yes, it does. Political capitol is like any other capitol. There's only so much of it to spend. At present, we're spending HUGE amounts of it to defeat Yee, who's pushing for something that couldn't even be attempted on the national stage.


That may be the case, but the problem is that the spending of political capital will remain local even when national laws are passed. That's because the violations (both of the laws and of the court decisions) are local in nature and therefore have to be fought in those localities.



Keep in mind that "better" doesn't mean we're going to be holding hands around a campfire, singing Kum-by-ya & farting rainbows. "Better" means that we won't have to waste time on PRK-only issues.


But we will have to continue to waste time on PRK-only issues. That's because it's the PRK and the localities within that will be putting up all the fight against national law and national court decisions. They will be the source of the issues, and that's what makes the issues PRK-only: nobody else is behaving in quite the same way.

You can't avoid fighting the foe here.


And like it or not, we're never going to see the kind of unification of law that you envision. If you want evidence of that, you need only look at traffic laws, which vary considerably from state to state. If something as simple and commonplace as driving can have notably different regulations on it based on state and locality, what in the world makes you think firearms and their use will have any less regulatory diversity?



"Better" means that every victory here would help the national effort.


The only victories that will ever help the national effort are victories in court, but that's already the case thanks to McDonald. So there is no difference to be found there.



The reverse is also true. Every victory elsewhere would have value (effect) here.


This is quite likely to be false. Victories elsewhere matter only to the degree they affect Supreme Court jurisprudence, but in order for that to truly matter, the case we'd bring would have to go to the Supreme Court anyway, even if only for a GVR.



Would things be better in the PRK if we didn't have to waste time, effort & political capitol on nonsense? The answer is, of course, yes. Does that mean that the fight would go quicker as well? Also, of course, yes.


Agreed, if we didn't have to waste time, effort, and political capital that way. But we do and we will have to waste it all the same, no matter what happens elsewhere in the U.S., because our foe is local and the very nature of the court system forces us to fight locally.




What makes you think that level of force is needed?


Because the civil rights movement was merely about fighting discrimination, while this is about guns. Guns are regarded as dangerous, a threat to safety and even to life, by the anti-gun contingency, and they will be at least as willing to put up a fight as the anti-civil-rights contingency was back during the civil rights movement. Since that level of force was needed back during the civil rights movement, it will certainly be needed for the RKBA movement.



A secondary effect is still an effect. And a fight fought on the national stage only has to be fought once, presuming preemption.


Presuming preemption. That's the whole flaw in your argument. You are presuming that the lower courts and state and local governments will heed the wishes of the upper courts and/or Supreme Court. But we already have proof that such a thing will not happen in the anti-gun strongholds (see Ezell), and we already have proof that they can get away with it without consequence (see NAACP v Alabama).



Again, happening in a pond because it's a pond & the national tools aren't in place yet.


Those national tools require the consent and cooperation of the executive branch. It was the President that sent in the national guard during the civil rights movement. Without an executive that is willing to back RKBA, we will get nowhere.

So if Obama wins, as I think is likely, the anti-gun strongholds will continue to do as they please because nobody in a position to stop them will be willing to do so.



The difference, again, is that the fight for those other civil rights has given us the tools to use in this fight for civil rights. We don't have to wait for the wheel to be re-invented.


The time it took for the civil rights movement to take place wasn't the result of lack of tools, it was the result of resistance. A court order is of no use if there's no force behind it. Now, if the Supreme Court becomes very aggressive with respect to showing that it's willing to stick a gun to the heads of the lower courts and the state and local governments, then I'll believe you on this, but at this point, the Supreme Court has not shown any such willingness. My skepticism derives from the fact that, as far as I know, the Court has never done such a thing in the entire history of the country.

Such unprecedented action is not something that I regard as a safe bet.

rt66paul
07-27-2012, 7:42 AM
If we look at the porno laws, the supremes copped out when they brought up "community standards". This states that just because it flies in NYC, doesn't mean that it does in Peoria. I am afraid any firearm standard that the feds ordered would be the same thing. The states that want it, get it, the states with anti-gun lobbies and one world government dreams, will not get it. Friends, when this happens, we all will have to bury or take our guns out of state.

rt66paul
08-09-2012, 4:45 PM
The civil rights laws were enforced because the majority of the people in this country thought they were right. Even though more states have more lenient laws on firearms than ca, they are not necessarily the majority. The majority of the people live in big cities and that is where most of the anti 2nd amendant sentiment is. It could be a tough fight, but it is one that we must win.
With much of the 1% anti gun, we will have a constant battle

hoffmang
08-09-2012, 7:09 PM
The civil rights laws were enforced because the majority of the people in this country thought they were right. Even though more states have more lenient laws on firearms than ca, they are not necessarily the majority. The majority of the people live in big cities and that is where most of the anti 2nd amendant sentiment is. It could be a tough fight, but it is one that we must win.
With much of the 1% anti gun, we will have a constant battle

Your math is not correct. 52% think we either have enough or too much gun control already. The most recent polling that I'm pulling this from was announced this morning.

Hang tough. We're behind enemy lines here. What happens here can't happen many other places - even NY...

-Gene

kcbrown
08-09-2012, 7:31 PM
Your math is not correct. 52% think we either have enough or too much gun control already. The most recent polling that I'm pulling this from was announced this morning.

Hang tough. We're behind enemy lines here. What happens here can't happen many other places - even NY...

-Gene

52% is a very slim majority indeed. By the math above, 48% think we do not have enough gun control.

Worse, that 52% includes people who are "on the fence" (i.e., those who believe the gun control in place now is sufficient, but who would not necessarily favor a reduction of gun control).

If more than 4% of the people are happy with how things are, then the anti-gunners win the race, because it means that their ranks exceed those of pro-rights people (i.e., those who want less gun control).

bohoki
08-09-2012, 7:36 PM
yea its a bit like a state decides to make a law saying you have to be 25 to drink

rt66paul
08-24-2012, 9:42 PM
Your math is not correct. 52% think we either have enough or too much gun control already. The most recent polling that I'm pulling this from was announced this morning.

Hang tough. We're behind enemy lines here. What happens here can't happen many other places - even NY...

-Gene

The problem here is that most people go out of their way to vote, only if it is an emotional issue. When the anti gun folk get people fired up(usually for emotional reasons, when they have an other agenda), those people will go out of their way to vote. Now the other people that believe in the US Constitution, can be more laid back about it and not even realize the strength of this anti gun(or whatever else) fever going on at that time.

Look at what certain leaders in the Republican party have done by telling the religious right how to vote, by firing them up about a single issue. We have to swallow the whole thing, if we vote that way, so please educate yourself before you vote.

Sadly, it seems that the two main presidential hopefuls are both anti gun, no matter what the republican vice presidential hopeful has said. make no mistakes here about who(and what puppet masters) will be in control - even if for some reason he does become POTUS, he will still have others telling him how to govern.

Just look at how Obama changed his tune after he was president a few days.

These next 4-8 years will be trying times for the American firearm owner, so be sure you are in a safe and legal position. The gun grabbers run both parties.