PDA

View Full Version : What will happen if there isn't a ban...


Moonshine
12-17-2012, 3:50 PM
Has anyone else thought that Feinstein, Obama, and others may not be able to convince the GOP to ban guns? Or is everyone operating under the assumption ALL democrats will jump at gun bans and a good number of GOP congressmen have had an epiphany and decided their pro-2nd Amendment views were wrong?

Are we about to see a glut of lowers and rifles in the Spring of 2013 when the IRS comes and people see the size of the credit card payments after maxing them out in panic? Share your thoughts here!

stix213
12-17-2012, 4:19 PM
What will happen is another run on guns and ammo, which appears to already be happening.

Then you'll see Chris Mathews crying about how his gun ban is stalled and claiming Obama needs to watch his show more (not the first time, pretty pathetic).

Then in about 18 months you'll see a lot of good deals on slightly used AR's, again.

Fatgunman
12-17-2012, 4:23 PM
If there is no ban I will personally be very happy, but what I think is going to happen is that the AWB will become part of the fiscal cliff talks, and because a majority of the media goes along with or flat out supports the president I'm not sure it's going to work out in our favor.

Maestro Pistolero
12-17-2012, 4:25 PM
There will be no ban. Repeat after me.

Chunky_lover
12-17-2012, 4:26 PM
just think if there is a major ban where everything is illegal
and your not allowed to even own them, then it will be a great day
all our bullet buttons can come off all evil features added

you wont make it anymore illegal then

Wherryj
12-17-2012, 4:31 PM
Has anyone else thought that Feinstein, Obama, and others may not be able to convince the GOP to ban guns? Or is everyone operating under the assumption ALL democrats will jump at gun bans and a good number of GOP congressmen have had an epiphany and decided their pro-2nd Amendment views were wrong?

Are we about to see a glut of lowers and rifles in the Spring of 2013 when the IRS comes and people see the size of the credit card payments after maxing them out in panic? Share your thoughts here!

There's no such thing as a glut of lowers or rifles. It's a lot like purses-one can NEVER have too many. Just ask my wife.

Wherryj
12-17-2012, 4:33 PM
If there is no ban I will personally be very happy, but what I think is going to happen is that the AWB will become part of the fiscal cliff talks, and because a majority of the media goes along with or flat out supports the president I'm not sure it's going to work out in our favor.

Nearly half of all homes own at least one firearm. This isn't going to go over as easily with the voters as it did in 1994. Then, there's the pesky fact that the House is controlled by the R's. It took both houses and the President to get the last AWB-and even then it cost the D's Congress and the Presidency. HOW ELSE could Bush II have been elected?

Sakiri
12-17-2012, 4:39 PM
There will be no ban. Repeat after me.

What makes you so sure?

I haven't picked a side yet(Yes there will, or no there won't) but I'm curious as to how you think there won't be.

I know they're trying.

I wouldn't take any chances and prepare as if there was though. Rather safe than sorry, that whole bit.

Moonshine
12-17-2012, 4:54 PM
Politicians can try. It costs them nothing to try and they win BIG with constituents and the media when you do. Feinstein is ALWAYS trying... Anyone else remember the body armor control bill from her, or previous attempts that died in committees? 1994 was HUGE and cost a lot of politicians their career. And in the recession of 2012 there's not as many $50,000 speaking engagements or $1 million book deals for politicians who throw away their career on gun control as there were in 1996...

JonnyGSX
12-17-2012, 5:00 PM
What makes you so sure?

I haven't picked a side yet(Yes there will, or no there won't) but I'm curious as to how you think there won't be.

I know they're trying.

I wouldn't take any chances and prepare as if there was though. Rather safe than sorry, that whole bit.

I believe that was more of a rallying cry... at least thats how i took it. I'm 28 and personally I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. My facebook feed is a blast with both pro and anti gun. There seems to be no middle ground either, half want no change (me) the others want a total ban. I have heard the claims that passing the actual legislation would be tough with the way congress is now.

What about an executive order from Obama for the ATF to reclassify all semi autos as class 3? I know that was brought up awhile back and kinda freaked me out as a real possibility? Is that too tin foil hat for reality?

vintagearms
12-17-2012, 5:04 PM
People thought the first AWB wasn't gonna happen either... I'm prepared either way and wont be selling anything anytime soon...

Moonshine
12-17-2012, 5:05 PM
Anything as extreme as a semi-auto ban will initiate a withdrawal from the United States by many southern states. There are many right now who want to leave the country, I know people who used to be good friends and will no longer speak to each other because of who they voted for. The election of 2012 was very divisive and I think something like a semi-auto ban would be throwing a match on gasoline.

Jaxpire
12-17-2012, 5:29 PM
There will be no ban. Repeat after me.

Remember a ton of people saying the same thing around 91 about SB23. Never stop being vigilant. :oji:

kf6tac
12-17-2012, 5:33 PM
If there is no federal ban, I'll send some thank-you letters to the Senators and Representatives who stuck to the Constitution, donate some more money to CGF, SAF, and NRA, and go back to trying to keep Leland Yee at bay (when does his term end, again?).

IVC
12-17-2012, 5:50 PM
The landscape has changed since 1994 and it wasn't easy even then. The states are constantly moving towards more liberal gun rights, the crime rates are on the decline and there is much better organization and communication between gun owners.

The great AWB ban of 1994 is now a liability for Feinstein - in the court of law she would have to defend against clear facts that the AWB didn't reduce crime in 1994 and that there was no "blood in the streets" in 2004. This would be required to overcome "in common use" clause in Heller.

We should worry much more about Yee and his new bill at the state level, then something far fetched and rooted in raw emotions at the federal level.

eville
12-17-2012, 5:54 PM
I don't think anything will happen at the national level. We'll be in for a hard fight here in CA. Hold the line!

RMP91
12-17-2012, 6:01 PM
The landscape has changed since 1994 and it wasn't easy even then. The states are constantly moving towards more liberal gun rights, the crime rates are on the decline and there is much better organization and communication between gun owners.

The great AWB ban of 1994 is now a liability for Feinstein - in the court of law she would have to defend against clear facts that the AWB didn't reduce crime in 1994 and that there was no "blood in the streets" in 2004. This would be required to overcome "in common use" clause in Heller.

We should worry much more about Yee and his new bill at the state level, then something far fetched and rooted in raw emotions at the federal level.

Don't forget that the AR15 platform is by far the most popular firearm in the United States. They are going to face the grand-daddy of all opposition in the form of MILLIONS of gun owners...

13withinfinity
12-17-2012, 6:04 PM
Then I'll be the owner of a few more legal weapons :O

Intimid8tor
12-17-2012, 6:05 PM
I hope some of you are right on the national level. I just see to many RINOs caving when it comes down to it. Instead of standing up and holding strong, enough will cave. That's my fear. I hope I'm wrong.

RMP91
12-17-2012, 6:06 PM
What about an executive order from Obama for the ATF to reclassify all semi autos as class 3? I know that was brought up awhile back and kinda freaked me out as a real possibility? Is that too tin foil hat for reality?

He would have done it by now, especially after something like this happened...

All he has done is offer words of comfort and a vow of "meaningful action". While he did not mention gun control explicitly (not saying he didn't either), you have to remember that you gotta think like a politician. You have to choose your words carefully especially in front of cameras in which millions of people are watching through.

This country is so divided on guns that the issue will never truly be resolved...

If this passes, we'll have a prime opportunity to challenge it in SCOTUS under the Heller/McDonald/Moore rulings as well as the "common use" clause.

IVC
12-17-2012, 6:19 PM
Don't forget that the AR15 platform is by far the most popular firearm in the United States. They are going to face the grand-daddy of all opposition in the form of MILLIONS of gun owners...

Yup. This also needs to be put into the proper context of firearm crime. Over 95% (give or take) of gun crime is committed with handguns which are explicitly protected since 2008.

The "blame the tool" groups now cannot blame "the handgun" as they would run directly into Heller. If they blame "the EBR," they will have to answer how it could affect the overall firearm crime rate even in principle, given that it could at most have a 1-2% effect (and this is a theoretical upper limit).

neouser
12-17-2012, 7:31 PM
Nearly half of all homes own at least one firearm. This isn't going to go over as easily with the voters as it did in 1994. Then, there's the pesky fact that the House is controlled by the R's. It took both houses and the President to get the last AWB-and even then it cost the D's Congress and the Presidency. HOW ELSE could Bush II have been elected?

I think it's a double edged sword. On one hand, there is an election coming up in 2014 and I'll bet the Democrats are setting up the campaign already. If they can convince America that the fiscal cliff standoff is caused by stubborn ignorant Republicans, they can sway votes and take the house. I am willing to bet that they are banking on it and putting their eggs into that basket.

On the other hand, although it is Obama's second term, the party still realizes that after Obama is out of office, they will need to put someone else in to take his place. Burn the public too much and it can all backfire. Obama isn't the last president this country will ever have and it's risky to push issues too hard. They'll have to choose their battles. Gun control is just one of the battles that the liberal media is pushing them into.

Just my opinion.

Carnivore
12-17-2012, 7:40 PM
As long as there isn't an executive order for the lord god king Obama then I don't "THINK" they will get a ban through. Then again I didn't think they would get the one in 94 through so I may and just jinxed the whole damn thing.

saki302
12-17-2012, 11:16 PM
Wait two weeks. The media frenzy will die down, the rabid ban idiots will lose their wind, and nothing will have a chance in h#@ of getting through congress next year.

There are 300 MILLION weapons in the country, and how many more hi-cap mags?- WTF is any ban going to accomplish at this point?

-Dave

Dreaded Claymore
12-18-2012, 2:35 AM
If there was ever going to be a new federal gun law, it was going to be after a Representative was shot. There were no new federal gun laws. The tide has turned against them.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 3:07 AM
If there was ever going to be a new federal gun law, it was going to be after a Representative was shot. There were no new federal gun laws. The tide has turned against them.

The deaths of a whole classroom of kindergarten kids have way more political effect than the non-fatal shooting of a Representative.

The tide that turned against them is now receding.

donny douchebag
12-18-2012, 3:36 AM
Ban or not there will be more mass shootings and one will finally be bad enough to force change. In other words all this was inevitable. Just a matter of time. It's why the 'we're winning' claims were so funny.

CaliforniaLiberal
12-18-2012, 4:09 AM
I'm in a glass half empty frame of mind and want to ask what will happen if a wave of Anti-Gun fever does roll through Congress.

KC, over the course of many posts over several years I have come to respect your opinion and the power of your pessimism. I cannot remember once when actual events were worse than what you anticipated. Often you have been right on in your predictions. So I'm asking for your opinion now.

Two questions for you:

1. Given present circumstances, what's the worst that could happen for us in terms of new Federal Gun Control Law?

2. Given present circumstances, what's the worst that could happen for us in terms of new California State Gun Control Law?


I've been pretty comfortable until now that the forces in Congress against more Gun Control would protect us from unreasoning Anti-Gun folks. Today my faith is shaken. I'm fearing and doubting.

And the CA State Legislature.... Never had faith and I'm seriously fearing and doubting. I still believe that Jerry Brown will veto the most crazy, most egregious bills that come to him, but that leaves a lot of room for just sorta bad bills. I cringe to think of Leland Yee waving little bloody shirts to gather votes in the Legislature.

KC, I'm interested to hear your take on what could happen.

voiceofreason
12-18-2012, 4:35 AM
If there is no federal ban, I'll send some thank-you letters to the Senators and Representatives who stuck to the Constitution, donate some more money to CGF, SAF, and NRA, and go back to trying to keep Leland Yee at bay (when does his term end, again?).

Donate NOW, so these organizations have funding for the upcoming fights.

Stop donating in a year if you'd like, but they need additional members and money NOW.

(thank you for supporting our pro rights organizations BTW)

voiceofreason
12-18-2012, 4:35 AM
Yup. This also needs to be put into the proper context of firearm crime. Over 95% (give or take) of gun crime is committed with handguns which are explicitly protected since 2008.

The "blame the tool" groups now cannot blame "the handgun" as they would run directly into Heller. If they blame "the EBR," they will have to answer how it could affect the overall firearm crime rate even in principle, given that it could at most have a 1-2% effect (and this is a theoretical upper limit).

Much less than 1% of all gun crimes are committed with AR style rifles.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 4:40 AM
I'm in a glass half empty frame of mind and want to ask what will happen if a wave of Anti-Gun fever does roll through Congress.

KC, over the course of many posts over several years I have come to respect your opinion and the power of your pessimism.


I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this (the "power" of my pessimism)...


I cannot remember once when actual events were worse than what you anticipated.


Well, if there have been no events that have been worse than I anticipated, then it truly means that my views have been pessimistic and need adjustment upwards! :D

That said, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than unpleasantly surprised...



Often you have been right on in your predictions. So I'm asking for your opinion now.

Two questions for you:

1. Given present circumstances, what's the worst that could happen for us in terms of new Federal Gun Control Law?


Another assault weapons ban, this time on possession. I'm skeptical that the Supreme Court will protect rifles the way they have handguns, because as long as handguns are available, the core right (self-defense) is satisfied. The same goes for standard capacity magazines (i.e., magazines over 10 rounds). Those, too, will be banned, but they might be able to get away without a "grandfather" clause on those, or they might simply force forfeiture with compensation. At the very least, I expect that transport of standard capacity magazines will be forbidden, so if you have some at home, that's where they'll stay.

In fact, they might be able to get away without a "grandfather" clause on the assault weapons ban itself. They'd just have to pay some amount of money per rifle turned in during the "grace" period. 100 million rifles at $500 each would cost the government $50 billion. That's pocket change to them these days, and 100 million "assault weapon" rifles is probably a significant overestimation of the number out there.


I don't think they could pull off a full-out ban on semiautomatic rifles. They have to be at least somewhat sensitive to semiautomatic rifle owners, of which there are many.


I also expect we'll get mental health checks integrated into NICS, and won't be surprised at all if mental health evaluations become required prior to purchase of a firearm. That, if such a thing passes, will be horribly abused, and large numbers of people will be denied the right to purchase firearms because of it. At the very least, any prior history of mental health treatment will be an automatically disqualifying factor.



2. Given present circumstances, what's the worst that could happen for us in terms of new California State Gun Control Law?


An all-out ban on semiautomatic rifles. California now has a Democrat supermajority. They can get away with that. They've already proven they don't give a crap about hunters, because nothing happened when they showed their hand on that (the hunting dogs legislation passed, and that was before Democrats had a supermajority). There will not be enough political capability to stop such a thing.

A ban on semiautomatic handguns will prove more of a problem. I expect California to try something like that, but that is challengeable in court in a way that a ban on rifles is not, because handguns are explicitly called out as being protected in Heller.



Note, however, that we're now up against a fast-moving clock. We have a 50% chance of losing at least one of the Heller majority in the next 4 years, and we're almost certain to get another Democrat president in 2016, because the Republican party has decided to self-destruct right before our eyes rather than adapt to reality. That might even cause us to lose the House in 2014. Either way, the Heller majority is all we're going to get in terms of support in the Supreme Court. It's only a matter of time now before we lose one of them, and then it's all over. We're not going to get another supporter on the Supreme Court for at least the next 20 years. The anti-gun courts know this, so they will make it take forever to actually get anywhere. They will succeed.



I've been pretty comfortable until now that the forces in Congress against more Gun Control would protect us from unreasoning Anti-Gun folks. Today my faith is shaken. I'm fearing and doubting.

And the CA State Legislature.... Never had faith and I'm seriously fearing and doubting. I still believe that Jerry Brown will veto the most crazy, most egregious bills that come to him, but that leaves a lot of room for just sorta bad bills. I cringe to think of Leland Yee waving little bloody shirts to gather votes in the Legislature.

KC, I'm interested to hear your take on what could happen.

Sadly, it's not good at all. The mantra has been that the majority of the country is behind us. I'm very skeptical of that now. And if the majority of the country isn't behind us after the latest tragedy, then we've lost the hearts and minds war. Once you lose the hearts and minds war, it's just a matter of time before you lose it all.

Wrangler John
12-18-2012, 4:53 AM
Do not trust the GOP, they are politicians. John Boehner is noted for caving, it seems to be a GOP trait, to any demands that would put them in a bad light. Politics is the art of compromise, not the art of remaining steadfast to values and rights. They caved in 1994, I remember Dole stating that the best they could do is make the law sunset in 10 years. Already Boehner has caved on the millionaires tax, and doubtless will sell out the middle class (class is a Marxist distinction to divide the population thereby creating dissension and jealousy between various economic groups, hence class warfare). We have already seen Boehner's stripes in his purge of conservative GOP House members from committees that would stymy his ability to give up, haul down the drapeau tricolore, and surrender to taxes that will further kill the economy. The only defense is to make it clear to the GOP that any compromise on our rights will result in financial disaster for the RINOs in the mid-terms. Either that or a spine transplant.

As the late Senator Everett Dirksen (R Ill) one of the most famous flip-floppers of all times, was quoted as saying: "When I fell the heat, I see the light." Begin turning up the thermostat now, supporting those who support us, remembering that money is the mother's milk of politics. As for California, well it will likely fall to Cal Guns Foundation, NRA, SAF and the others to work within the courts to unravel the knots about to be tied, ultimately liberty will win.

voiceofreason
12-18-2012, 5:21 AM
There will be no ban. Repeat after me.

why do you feel there will be no ban?

Mulay El Raisuli
12-18-2012, 6:48 AM
I think it's a double edged sword. On one hand, there is an election coming up in 2014 and I'll bet the Democrats are setting up the campaign already. If they can convince America that the fiscal cliff standoff is caused by stubborn ignorant Republicans, they can sway votes and take the house. I am willing to bet that they are banking on it and putting their eggs into that basket.

On the other hand, although it is Obama's second term, the party still realizes that after Obama is out of office, they will need to put someone else in to take his place. Burn the public too much and it can all backfire. Obama isn't the last president this country will ever have and it's risky to push issues too hard. They'll have to choose their battles. Gun control is just one of the battles that the liberal media is pushing them into.

Just my opinion.


Or so you hope! :eek:

Sorry, I'm just joking. Someone had to out on the tinfoil hat & I chose me for the day.

Actually, I'm with Maestro Pistolero. Its not the time to sit on our duffs, but even the anti-Constitutionalists admit that we won the war. That being the case, we'll win this battle as well.


The Raisuli

CaliforniaLiberal
12-18-2012, 9:40 AM
One reason for hope is that there is some (some!) reluctance in the Supreme Court to drastically change recent (in the last 20 years) decisions as the political makeup of the Court changes. It is thought that it would lead to legal chaos and to the disrepute of the Court if important decisions were to flip back and forth every few years.

Nothing even like a guarantee, but as long as we can get a few more pro-2nd Amendment decisions handed down before the Heller Five leave, and get the lower courts used to deciding in favor of righteous citizen gun owners it will take some years to go back to the pre-Heller legal environment.

I hope.

donw
12-18-2012, 9:52 AM
that there will be some successful legislation passed, of that i'm certain...what the final outcome will be...i'm not certain.

more than likely, it will be a limit on mag capacity, nationwide...probably a 5 or 10 round limit... California will probably pass a 5 round limit.

IVC
12-18-2012, 10:00 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this (the "power" of my pessimism)...

He egged you on and you outdid yourself with pessimism :).

Realistically, an AW ban is a very tricky proposition at the federal level, not only because of the political consequences, but also because Heller protects arms "in common use." Yes, it is only explicit on "handguns," but it's also only explicit on "in home." Neither of these two facts limits the ruling, though.

The real tricky part for antis is that if the AW is rammed through the Congress, challenged and then ends up at SCOTUS - any sane person knows that it's much more likely to be stricken down than to stick. Even if one considers it a 50-50 proposition, the damage from striking down an AW ban would close that door forever. That's very risky for the antis.

jonc
12-18-2012, 10:19 AM
that would suck if we only can shoot 5 rounds!!!

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 11:04 AM
He egged you on and you outdid yourself with pessimism :).


Hey, he did ask. :D



Realistically, an AW ban is a very tricky proposition at the federal level, not only because of the political consequences,


Those political consequences just went up in the gunsmoke from that madman's Bushmaster. They used to be there. They're not any longer.



but also because Heller protects arms "in common use." Yes, it is only explicit on "handguns," but it's also only explicit on "in home." Neither of
these two facts limits the ruling, though.


But this is a case of a "time, place, or manner" restriction. In this case, it's a manner restriction on firearm construction. It's a broad one, but it's there nonetheless.

The problem here is that the challenge to the ban in question will have to wend its way through the courts before getting to the Supreme Court, and there's a roughly 50% chance that we lose our Heller majority within the next 4 years. We're not getting a preliminary injunction against this, because the jurisprudence that will be in place won't cover this particular kind of law, so that means we have to go the slow route.

Fortunately, because we're talking about a nationwide ban, we get to pick the venue for the challenge, so there is some reasonable chance of getting a decent amount of speed out of it.



The real tricky part for antis is that if the AW is rammed through the Congress, challenged and then ends up at SCOTUS - any sane person knows that it's much more likely to be stricken down than to stick. Even if one considers it a 50-50 proposition, the damage from striking down an AW ban would close that door forever. That's very risky for the antis.

Perhaps. But courts are incredibly adept at writing decisions that reflect what they want to achieve, no matter what the precedence is. If the composition of the Supreme Court changes and another AW ban (or something strikingly similar -- it won't be exactly the same thing precisely to give the court a "way out") passes, the Court will use the differences between that ban and the previously struck down one to justify upholding it.

Precedence means absolutely nothing in the face of a court that is determined to achieve an outcome in conflict with it.

IVC
12-18-2012, 11:45 AM
But this is a case of a "time, place, or manner" restriction. In this case, it's a manner restriction on firearm construction. It's a broad one, but it's there nonetheless.

It's the "manner or carry." Big difference.

The court could mess with the "compelling government interest" and ignore that there is no proof, effectively substituting elevated scrutiny for rational basis. However, this would be somewhat of a conspiracy theory at the level of SCOTUS.

Precedence means absolutely nothing in the face of a court that is determined to achieve an outcome in conflict with it.

There are always workarounds. The "military style weapon" is not particularly precise. There are many "evil looking rifles" that are featureless.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 1:11 PM
It's the "manner or carry." Big difference.


No. "Time, place, or manner" is a generic term in reference to restrictions in the general case. It is neither limited to the arms arena nor constrained to specific kinds of restrictions in the arms arena.


The court could mess with the "compelling government interest" and ignore that there is no proof, effectively substituting elevated scrutiny for rational basis. However, this would be somewhat of a conspiracy theory at the level of SCOTUS.


Considering the number of things that have come to pass that were previously regarded as "conspiracy theories", you would be wise to not dismiss such things so easily, because the trends have turned against you on that.



There are always workarounds. The "military style weapon" is not particularly precise. There are many "evil looking rifles" that are featureless.

That merely delays the inevitable. An "assault weapons" ban is but the first such ban of many. The political trends now are such that a semiautomatic rifle ban is an inevitability. It's just a matter of time, and this trend will not reverse itself for many decades. That's long enough to make the trend permanent, because the only way to reverse it is to increase the positive exposure to firearms, and that cannot happen in an environment of ever-increasing restrictions. The anti-gun trend is a positive feedback loop. We were starting to make some progress on that front. That progress has just gone up in smoke.

Carry as a right might have some effect in turning that around, but I expect that to fail in the face of an avalanche of "reasonable restrictions". We'll see.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-18-2012, 1:21 PM
The only way that the GOP house will approve an AW ban is if the "Regressives" offer so many concessions in return that it would actually allow lowly "serfs" like us in LA county to get CCWs.

...but yeah, I don't thing a ban on AWs will pass the house.

vtabiker
12-18-2012, 1:33 PM
I think any ban that happens would have to be an executive order as there's no way the house would pass and i doubt even the senate would have enough. Dems are more gun friendly than they have been in the past, by far. They also don't really give a crap about kids shot in schools more than their livelihood.

I think if there's a semi-auto ban that actually passed, it might be the last straw for many and there would be some much needed violence to that end.

Personally I think an executive order would be unlikely. As politically charged as this topic is it would be seen as an end-run around congress and legislating. Executive orders have always been on shaky legal ground and the last thing a president wants is that topic in front of the Supreme Court.

tcrpe
12-18-2012, 2:26 PM
Kopel also said Obama could try to classify certain guns as "destructive devices," a legal term for some weapons that are highly restricted by federal law. So, for example, Obama could administratively reclassify the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle similar to the one used in the Newtown shooting, as a destructive device. Kopel thinks this would be a legally dubious move, however, which would most likely be challenged in the courts.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-executive-action-guns-145033715.html

dbldblu
12-18-2012, 4:16 PM
The landscape has changed since 1994 and it wasn't easy even then. The states are constantly moving towards more liberal gun rights, the crime rates are on the decline and there is much better organization and communication between gun owners.

The great AWB ban of 1994 is now a liability for Feinstein - in the court of law she would have to defend against clear facts that the AWB didn't reduce crime in 1994 and that there was no "blood in the streets" in 2004. This would be required to overcome "in common use" clause in Heller.

. . . .

Almost exactly what I was going to post. We may get a national AWB but it will be found unconstitutional. But then the left can demonize the NRA even more.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-18-2012, 4:23 PM
But then the left can demonize the NRA even more.

They're going to do that anyway. Just like they do with the oil industry, the medical industry, the tobacco industry...

...but weed should be legal! :rolleyes:

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds...

Pred Thumper
12-18-2012, 5:24 PM
Often you have been right on in your predictions. So I'm asking for your opinion now.

Two questions for you:

1. Given present circumstances, what's the worst that could happen for us in terms of new Federal Gun Control Law?

The California legislature is now dominated by the Democrats. Word has it that the bullet button "loophole" as they put it will be eliminated. If that happens we will be put in an extreme handicap when only criminals will have the ability to reload much faster. Why would they want to put us in such a disadvantage when all we are trying to do is exercise our right to defend ourselves in time when it makes the difference of life and death? Don't they understand that criminals will be able to obtain whatever they want and just laugh at the rest of us because we are abiding by the law and following the rules set by those that don't realize there are no rules when dealing with the likes of criminals intent on hurting our love ones?

Pred Thumper
12-18-2012, 6:01 PM
Oops sorry I meant to Yee and his bill is SB 47

Mulay El Raisuli
12-19-2012, 7:12 AM
Those political consequences just went up in the gunsmoke from that madman's Bushmaster. They used to be there. They're not any longer.


You're far too pessimistic. Even the completely rabid anti-Constitutionalists at the Wash. Post bemoan the fact that "this too shall pass" & that in the end, nothing will be done.


But this is a case of a "time, place, or manner" restriction. In this case, it's a manner restriction on firearm construction. It's a broad one, but it's there nonetheless.


Not unless you can show an example of "manner" being the same as "manufactured." I don't know of any.

Also, given the wording in Heller about how "in common use" = Protected, I'm not seeing any way for a ban on a particular way a gun is manufactured to fly.


The problem here is that the challenge to the ban in question will have to wend its way through the courts before getting to the Supreme Court, and there's a roughly 50% chance that we lose our Heller majority within the next 4 years. We're not getting a preliminary injunction against this, because the jurisprudence that will be in place won't cover this particular kind of law, so that means we have to go the slow route.


We may not get an injunction (though for the reasons above, I think we will), but that doesn't mean we can't file for one. Which means the clock will start much earlier than you think.


Perhaps. But courts are incredibly adept at writing decisions that reflect what they want to achieve, no matter what the precedence is. If the composition of the Supreme Court changes and another AW ban (or something strikingly similar -- it won't be exactly the same thing precisely to give the court a "way out") passes, the Court will use the differences between that ban and the previously struck down one to justify upholding it.

Precedence means absolutely nothing in the face of a court that is determined to achieve an outcome in conflict with it.


Lower courts may try that. Ezell is a good example. But, see how the 7th isn't playing along?


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
12-19-2012, 7:13 AM
He egged you on and you outdid yourself with pessimism :).

Realistically, an AW ban is a very tricky proposition at the federal level, not only because of the political consequences, but also because Heller protects arms "in common use." Yes, it is only explicit on "handguns," but it's also only explicit on "in home." Neither of these two facts limits the ruling, though.

The real tricky part for antis is that if the AW is rammed through the Congress, challenged and then ends up at SCOTUS - any sane person knows that it's much more likely to be stricken down than to stick. Even if one considers it a 50-50 proposition, the damage from striking down an AW ban would close that door forever. That's very risky for the antis.


Yes, it is.


The Raisuli