PDA

View Full Version : They cannot take away our guns or gun rights


Window_Seat
12-26-2012, 12:01 PM
All,

In light of this tragedy, there has been lots of talk amongst us in terms of this politician and that media pundit going around saying "confiscate confiscate confiscate!!!" We all know that to be obvious, and we know that a tragedy of any kind involving a firearm is going to be a precursor to screaming in favor of confiscation and banning of firearms of all kinds.

There are threads indicating doom and gloom for our Second Amendment rights, and while anything in the way of "efforts" by anyone with any form of power needs to be taken seriously, there is a simple answer to this issue of them wanting to take our guns and gun rights away;

The Second Amendment, and the opinions in Heller and McDonald will ABSOLUTELY not allow confiscation or deprivation of the right against the law-abiding without a war, so all of this talk about lawmakers wanting to confiscate and ban is a laughable proposition that would have the Supreme Court Justices ready to bust their gavels.

As for bans in Australia being a precursor to bans here in the United States, there is no comparison to Australia because they don't have the kind of Second Amendment protections that we have here in the United States where we have actual live Constitutional Protections. In addition to that, we have enough gun rights groups in this nation to likely top (just my wild [and likely wishful] guess) at least 8 million. I'm involving all the gun rights groups on the states' level, not just the NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO and those on the national level. The membership here at CGN is 130,821 (with 29,783 active members). Thinking about the increase in membership numbers due to this issue is something to maybe consider as well.

CGN is state minded, so think about all the other state groups and how many members those groups might have as well, then add up the numbers, and one might agree that the total I estimate above might be "conservative", but that's just a theory of mine that could be full of...

Feinstein, Obama, Bloomberg and others want a ban on semi-auto rifles and other semi-auto firearms, and they say it could be done because they did it in 1994.

There is A LOT MORE KNOWLEDGE and we have a lot more sharp fangs on our side today than we had back in 1994. We now have people like Gura, Kilmer, Clement, Michel, Hoffman, Gottlieb, LaPierre and others who have minds which are far more superior in knowledge than the mental cases within the Washington Beltway and Sacramento Capitol. Put them together with litigants like Peterson, Richards, Pea, Nordyke and so many others, and 1994 becomes rather irrelevant.

As for Feinstein & Bloomberg as well as others and their dream bills, they not only disregard the Constitution, but absolutely dismiss it with contempt, so while we need to keep a close watch on her and take anything she and her henchmen/women says seriously, we also need to not let it cause a breakdown amongst us. In addition, we also need to be careful what we say here, and stay focused.

Erik.

Springfield45
12-26-2012, 2:03 PM
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson-

Merkava_4
12-26-2012, 5:45 PM
All the liberal congressmen and senators are trying to figure out a way to repeal the 2nd Amendment. We're headed towards the 2nd civil war.

OleCuss
12-26-2012, 6:09 PM
One other point, it is actually possible that if the anti-liberty folk get their wish out of Congress that they will regret their actions.

I can imagine a number of scenarios where the bad law gets us good results in the end. I'm not advocating for bad law, but there could be amazing silver lining involved.

bishop2queen's6
12-26-2012, 6:13 PM
The only issue is that gun owners, and gun right supporters are the minority in heavily populated states. The heavily populated states have the most influence.

Although a national ban may not take place, expect more heavily restrictive laws to be passed

Johnny Lightning
12-26-2012, 6:15 PM
This is so well written that my blood pressure just dropped significantly. I feel that once this efforts of theirs fails this issue will be settled even further and we will be stronger than they could have ever imagined.

chiburi
12-26-2012, 6:30 PM
What I find intriguing is the "gun buy back" that just took place today, or over the next several, in Los Angeles. People are turning in their fire arms for gift cards. I suppose if you put all your trust in the local establishment, you may do that. However, I'm not about to turn in any fire arm for a gift card to Chili's, only to find someone breaks into my home with intentions of eliminating my family - not going to happen.....

Just shocked people are willing to "sell" their arms. May be a sly way of the government to remove guns, but my guess is only law abiding folks were turning their guns in today...

Chib

Goosebrown
12-26-2012, 6:36 PM
I want to add that there is not going to be a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. To Amend the Constitution you need 38 states to ratify the change. (Or have a constitutional convention which is not going to happen.)

I will bet anyone here $1 that Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina will never ever vote for a change to the 2nd Amendment. That makes 15 states at least, and I bet there are a lot more like Alaska that wouldn't vote for a change. The effort to change the 2nd would be a grist mill for the anti's money and it would never work.

I think we are going to see California like laws nationwide, but nothing more.

epilepticninja
12-26-2012, 6:52 PM
I'm concerned with the b.s. that the libtards are going to throw up in this state. If I was living in AZ (please "insert deity here," let this be true some day) I really wouldn't be sweating this too much. But living here in the great state of traffic congestion and free handouts to the lazy, I'm scared to death that I'm not going to be allowed to have no more than a slingshot for self-defense...oh wait, they will legislate that too, shizz.

Paul S
12-26-2012, 7:03 PM
Don't think it is impossible to nullify the 2nd amendment.
Remember the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment (prohibition).

This is not to say I believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed...but it is possible to do so.

Oceanbob
12-26-2012, 7:07 PM
Well said Erik.

Thanks...:D

navycorpsman
12-26-2012, 7:08 PM
What I find intriguing is the "gun buy back" that just took place today, or over the next several, in Los Angeles. People are turning in their fire arms for gift cards. I suppose if you put all your trust in the local establishment, you may do that. However, I'm not about to turn in any fire arm for a gift card to Chili's, only to find someone breaks into my home with intentions of eliminating my family - not going to happen.....

Just shocked people are willing to "sell" their arms. May be a sly way of the government to remove guns, but my guess is only law abiding folks were turning their guns in today...

Chib

The gun buy back was a joke. I have a friend who worked it today and its mostly illegal,broken and guns not worth even what the gift cards are. Those things get mostly ILLEGAL guns out of these people hands. They claim Ar-15's were turned in today buy looked like brand new out of box and i am sure were "loaners" by LAPD

liv4spd
12-26-2012, 7:09 PM
Well said. :iagree:

Corbin Dallas
12-26-2012, 7:11 PM
Erik,

That is the best piece written here in years.

As I've told our local IDPA members and fellow shooters. Stick to the facts and act professional. Leave your personal feelings out of it and do NOT sink to their level with emotional responses and fear mongering.

jpigeon
12-26-2012, 7:29 PM
The question is what do we do when we they come

chiburi
12-26-2012, 10:21 PM
Don't they need Chuck Norris' approval first?

chiburi
12-26-2012, 10:22 PM
Don't they need Chuck Norris' approval first?

Calgunner739
12-26-2012, 10:40 PM
I want to add that there is not going to be a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. To Amend the Constitution you need 38 states to ratify the change. (Or have a constitutional convention which is not going to happen.)

I will bet anyone here $1 that Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina will never ever vote for a change to the 2nd Amendment. That makes 15 states at least, and I bet there are a lot more like Alaska that wouldn't vote for a change. The effort to change the 2nd would be a grist mill for the anti's money and it would never work.

I think we are going to see California like laws nationwide, but nothing more.

What I want to see is those states you listed, to stand up to the Feds and refuse any further restrictions on firearms similar to those in California.

macentyre
12-27-2012, 1:13 AM
Well said Erik!

press1280
12-27-2012, 1:35 AM
I want to add that there is not going to be a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. To Amend the Constitution you need 38 states to ratify the change. (Or have a constitutional convention which is not going to happen.)

I will bet anyone here $1 that Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina will never ever vote for a change to the 2nd Amendment. That makes 15 states at least, and I bet there are a lot more like Alaska that wouldn't vote for a change. The effort to change the 2nd would be a grist mill for the anti's money and it would never work.

I think we are going to see California like laws nationwide, but nothing more.

I highly doubt you'd even get 1 state with over 50% of the voting population vote to repeal the 2A. Keep in mind only 6 states DON'T have RKBA in their state constitutions, no state has EVER repealed their amendment.

The Geologist
12-27-2012, 11:07 AM
What I want to see is those states you listed, to stand up to the Feds and refuse any further restrictions on firearms similar to those in California.

Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee appear to already have via the Firearms Freedom Act.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/

Calplinker
12-27-2012, 11:35 AM
Personally, I think we will see little to no legislation out of Washington that restricts gun rights. Far more likely that Obama will issue EO's as he has some latitude there.

Even with that, I think it highly unlikely he would try to ban "assault weapons" by feature with an EO. I just don't think he'd try, nor do I think it would withstand a legal challenge.

Feinstein's proposed legislation is dead on arrival. Nothing will come of it.

Nevertheless, there is still quite a lot Obama can do via EO that would cause us grief and I think many, if not most of his orders would withstand a legal challenge.

Here at the state level, it will get a bit ugly, though I still see NO WAY they can outright confiscate our evil black guns.

It's the same issues they faced with the bill last year. They don't have the money to do a buy back, and they can't legally confiscate without reasonable compensation.

If they REALLY and TRULY want to get rid of evil black rifles here in CA, they only have one path open to them. They have to grandfather in all existing rifles, thereby adding probably a cool million rifles to the assault weapons registry. They then ban them anew.

Down side is no new ones get in the state, but for those of us who already own them, we get to take off our bullet buttons and mail them to the good senator's office. ;)

Stubby
12-27-2012, 12:21 PM
All the liberal congressmen and senators are trying to figure out a way to repeal the 2nd Amendment. We're headed towards the 2nd civil war.

I hate big government and think our country has been heading down the wrong path for a long time. But this kind of quote just drives me insane. Do you know how difficult it is to repeal a constitutional amendment? Take a moment to read the OP brilliant post and learn to read between the lines of what the Bloomidiots and Frankensteins are saying. Sure, in their ultimate utopian world all guns in the hands of civilians would be banned. But they know that they have no hope of this world happening.

Remember, they only say these things to get these kind of reactions out of people. They want you and others to talk of civil war. That way they can plaster your words all over the media and say "look at this crazy gun owner". Believe me, if this country is to enter into a second civil war it will be many issues that get us there.

Calgunner739
12-27-2012, 1:18 PM
Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee appear to already have via the Firearms Freedom Act.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/

I saw this referenced a few days ago. It's nice, but from what I can see that only affects homemade firearms or those made and sold in that single state. That is a small minority.

How would that affect an AR-15 that had a componet manufactured in another state (The upper, sights, forward grip, collapsable stock, etc. was made in another state)?

Calgunner739
12-27-2012, 1:26 PM
Personally, I think we will see little to no legislation out of Washington that restricts gun rights. Far more likely that Obama will issue EO's as he has some latitude there.

Even with that, I think it highly unlikely he would try to ban "assault weapons" by feature with an EO. I just don't think he'd try, nor do I think it would withstand a legal challenge.

Feinstein's proposed legislation is dead on arrival. Nothing will come of it.

Nevertheless, there is still quite a lot Obama can do via EO that would cause us grief and I think many, if not most of his orders would withstand a legal challenge.

Here at the state level, it will get a bit ugly, though I still see NO WAY they can outright confiscate our evil black guns.

It's the same issues they faced with the bill last year. They don't have the money to do a buy back, and they can't legally confiscate without reasonable compensation.

If they REALLY and TRULY want to get rid of evil black rifles here in CA, they only have one path open to them. They have to grandfather in all existing rifles, thereby adding probably a cool million rifles to the assault weapons registry. They then ban them anew.

Down side is no new ones get in the state, but for those of us who already own them, we get to take off our bullet buttons and mail them to the good senator's office. ;)

I know you meant well, but I just can't stand it when grandfathering is talked about in a positive or acceptable way as a compromise. It's winning a battle, but sacrificing the war. You get to keep your rifle, but everyone one else somehow loses that right to bear arms.

We don't want to minimize the amount of people that can enter the gun community. We want to be as open and helpful as possible to newcomers. We need to actively help new shooters into the community.

Otherwise we end up like Australia where the gun community was widdled away until eventually only the old guys with their grandfathered rifles were left and the extreme majority of the population were unfamiliar/FUD with firearms, which gave the gun community no support. The gun community needs public support. We have strength in numbers. We cannot be marginalized.

chiselchst
12-27-2012, 1:28 PM
Erik,

Very well said. I think we all need to step back, take a deep breath, and support (finacially or by volunteering, or in some way) those groups that defend our rights for us. And calm down, and not panic. We have a bright future.

One reason I beleive that is all of the recent legal battles that have gone our way. Heller, McDonald, and all of the other smaller cases. And whether you support allowing teaching with CCW's to carry or not in GFSZ's, the simple fact that this is even being discussed in mainstream media is actually a good sign (IMHO). Firearms might JUST be starting to shed the negative image; i.e., guns are BAD.
_____________________

(I posted this below on another thread)

You cannot ban an AK or an AR! Listen to Alan Gura at ~1:34:02. Sounds like it would be very vulnerable in court, if it ever became law. Me no lawyer tho...

Wait for Gura to give HIS opinion, after winning the SCOTUS case (starting at 1:34) WAIT FOR IT...

?v=pNN7_TOvaUo

reznunt
12-27-2012, 2:09 PM
I know you meant well, but I just can't stand it when grandfathering is talked about in a positive or acceptable way as a compromise. It's winning a battle, but sacrificing the war. You get to keep your rifle, but everyone one else somehow loses that right to bear arms.

We don't want to minimize the amount of people that can enter the gun community. We want to be as open and helpful as possible to newcomers. We need to actively help new shooters into the community.

Otherwise we end up like Australia where the gun community was widdled away until eventually only the old guys with their grandfathered rifles were left and the extreme majority of the population were unfamiliar/FUD with firearms, which gave the gun community no support. The gun community needs public support. We have strength in numbers. We cannot be marginalized.

yes, the long run, my friend. :oji:

Merkava_4
12-27-2012, 2:23 PM
Do you know how difficult it is to repeal a constitutional amendment?


No I don't. Please explain it to me because I've been going to bed angry every night and I'm having trouble getting enough sleep.

Kid Stanislaus
12-27-2012, 3:48 PM
All the liberal congressmen and senators are trying to figure out a way to repeal the 2nd Amendment. We're headed towards the 2nd civil war.

It takes a vote of 3/5 of the state legislatures to do that and you KNOW that just ain't gonna happen.;)

Kid Stanislaus
12-27-2012, 3:53 PM
Erik, That is the best piece written here in years. As I've told our local IDPA members and fellow shooters. Stick to the facts and act professional. Leave your personal feelings out of it and do NOT sink to their level with emotional responses and fear mongering.

Nothing like THAT would ever happen here at CalGuns!:D

Calgunner739
12-27-2012, 3:56 PM
yes, the long run, my friend. :oji:

:cheers2: I am only 21 years old. :oji: haha

ScottB
12-27-2012, 4:14 PM
The Second is still a highly undefined right, even after Heller and McDonald. I've never been one for hysteria and fear mongering, but I think its a mistake to conclude on the basis of those two decisions were are guaranteed to be able to own the sorts of weapons we are accustomed to. Targeted bans are still possible along with significant restrictions on travel, use and storage as well as ownership requirements. They will be litigated and we may win, but that would be years down the road. We might also lose. We cannot take for granted that AR's and detachable mags are now part of the 2A guarantee.

Another issue involves grandfathering and transfer bans. I still cannot understand how it is possible that I can own a RAW because I acted at a point in time, but that another fully enfranchised citizen cannot acquire a RAW, even from a fixed supply. Clearly my rights are superior to many of my fellow citizens. How does that comport with equal protection guarantees? I can't see how, yet, the situation exists and has for many years and I am unaware and any likely pending reversal.

I think the only prudent posture us with respect to dealing with proposed or pending bills is to fight them as hard as we ever have and take nothing for granted. If recent court decisions help us, fine. But to take that they will as an article of faith at this point seems foolish.

themandylion
12-27-2012, 7:26 PM
The Second Amendment, and the opinions in Heller and McDonald will ABSOLUTELY not allow confiscation or deprivation of the right against the law-abiding without a war, so all of this talk about lawmakers wanting to confiscate and ban is a laughable proposition that would have the Supreme Court Justices ready to bust their gavels.

Heller and McDonald are a heartbeat and a Senate vote away from being overturned. If any of the SCOTUS members who affirmed those decisions dies, the Narcissist in Chief will appoint an anti-2A crazed lunatic to take his place. Maybe Chuckie Schumer?

Step one: attempt to force everyone to register their weapons as NFA firearms, complete with the $200 tax (or maybe higher).

Step two: overturn Heller and McDonald, and then issue an Executive Order.

And that's if "they" want to do it with a semblance of legality.

The Second Amendment is its own guarantee...but only if good men & women are willing to implement it when the dark day comes.

supermanuf
12-27-2012, 7:30 PM
Window Seat:

:King:

Rider1k
12-27-2012, 7:30 PM
I must be psychic. I see troubled times ahead

themandylion
12-27-2012, 7:31 PM
I want to add that there is not going to be a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. To Amend the Constitution you need 38 states to ratify the change. (Or have a constitutional convention which is not going to happen.

You don't need to formally repeal the Second Amendment, merely "interpret" it out of existence. After all, plain English doesn't really mean "shall not be infringed." Gun control is doubleplusgood.

The NFA, GCA, AWB, and whatever other obscenity the Federal regime will decree are and will be patently and plainly unconstitutional.

CharlesV
12-27-2012, 7:49 PM
Did any of you watch Obamas vid response to the White House petitions?

I'll summarize. "Please know that i fully believe in the 2nd Am and your right to bear arms. I first demonstated that belief in launching measures to take away assault weapons and hi-cap mags. I intend to further demonstrate my full belief in the 2nd Am and the safety of your children by a comprehensive (ban). I wanted legislation by January and so this will be the priority of my tenure as we go forward in early 2013. Thank you so much for taking time on the petitions, believe me we hear you."

I wonder whose side the military is taking at this moment as ridiculous and absurd statements like that push us closer to civil war.

kcstott
12-27-2012, 7:55 PM
What you guys forget or over look is how california's assault weapons ban was passed.

It was passed not on the premise that it would or would not infringe on your 2A rights. They addressed it as a public safety issue. and said the the class of weapon listed as assault weapons are a threat to public safety. that right there will get more leverage then any anti 2A fight going.

themandylion
12-27-2012, 8:03 PM
Did any of you watch Obamas vid response to the White House petitions?

I'll summarize. "Please know that i fully believe in the 2nd Am and your right to bear arms. I first demonstated that belief in launching measures to take away assault weapons and hi-cap mags. I intend to further demonstrate my full belief in the 2nd Am and the safety of your children by a comprehensive (ban). I wanted legislation by January and so this will be the priority of my tenure as we go forward in early 2013. Thank you so much for taking time on the petitions, believe me we hear you."

What is truly sad is that I am not so sure he doesn't believe his textbook doublethink is disingenuous.

Consider the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - "rights" and "freedoms" of Soviet citizens:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap07

tcrpe
12-27-2012, 8:05 PM
They can take them away. They'll chip away bit by bit. It's already started.

chris
12-27-2012, 8:11 PM
What you guys forget or over look is how california's assault weapons ban was passed.

It was passed not on the premise that it would or would not infringe on your 2A rights. They addressed it as a public safety issue. and said the the class of weapon listed as assault weapons are a threat to public safety. that right there will get more leverage then any anti 2A fight going.

the ban was passed way before Heller and McDonald. i have to say that the US vs Miller was used alot by the gun banners. now things are different. but it will take alot to change that given that ban them all climate we are seeing today. if we didn't have Heller and McDonald today we would be in a world of trouble. i believe those 2 cases are going be a hard thing to get around. not saying that politicians won't find a way to do it though.

if i'am wrong in my post feel free to correct me. this is how i take the two cases on 2A.

USMCM16A2
12-27-2012, 9:04 PM
Folks,



Windowseat posted a youtube piece with Alan Gura at Brown University, discusing the Heller Decision. It is very important that you listen to it, take time. It will lay to rest alot of your fears, Librarian is there any way to make this a sticky?Thanks A2

Window_Seat
12-27-2012, 9:22 PM
Actually, that was chiselchst's reply to my thread posting the Alan Gura video, but yes. I've been watching (and listening) to that piece.

Erik.

gobler
12-27-2012, 9:26 PM
Never mind

Brandsayer
12-27-2012, 9:28 PM
Link?

Here is a detailed discussion of the decision:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNN7_TOvaUo

desertjosh
12-27-2012, 9:31 PM
Heller and McDonald are a heartbeat and a Senate vote away from being overturned. If any of the SCOTUS members who affirmed those decisions dies, the Narcissist in Chief will appoint an anti-2A crazed lunatic to take his place. Maybe Chuckie Schumer?

Step one: attempt to force everyone to register their weapons as NFA firearms, complete with the $200 tax (or maybe higher).

Step two: overturn Heller and McDonald, and then issue an Executive Order.

And that's if "they" want to do it with a semblance of legality.

The Second Amendment is its own guarantee...but only if good men & women are willing to implement it when the dark day comes.

This^^^^ and unfortunately no matter what happens at the national level I fear we are in for much worse in this state.

Don29palms
12-27-2012, 10:21 PM
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg164/don29palms/PART951355242526258.jpg

damoni
12-28-2012, 12:51 AM
What I find intriguing is the "gun buy back" that just took place today, or over the next several, in Los Angeles. People are turning in their fire arms for gift cards. I suppose if you put all your trust in the local establishment, you may do that. However, I'm not about to turn in any fire arm for a gift card to Chili's, only to find someone breaks into my home with intentions of eliminating my family - not going to happen.....

Just shocked people are willing to "sell" their arms. May be a sly way of the government to remove guns, but my guess is only law abiding folks were turning their guns in today...

Chib

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! How many criminals were in line to turn over their weapons? I'm going to go out on the limb and say none. What a joke those buy backs are.:facepalm:

mrdd
12-28-2012, 2:43 AM
Do you know how difficult it is to repeal a constitutional amendment?

No I don't. Please explain it to me because I've been going to bed angry every night and I'm having trouble getting enough sleep.

It takes a vote of 3/5 of the state legislatures to do that and you KNOW that just ain't gonna happen.;)

Proposing an amendment by Congress requires a 2/3 vote in both houses and ratification requires the assent of 3/4 of the state legislatures.

lavey29
12-28-2012, 5:52 AM
If this ban gets through at the federal level and they make hi cap mags illegal, you basically have to turn them in or destroy them or risk arrest if you get caught with them. Not sure what route most people will choose here but I suspect a lot will just stay buried somewhere un-useable.

The feds will force us to turn in our guns by using civil penalties. They will use the IRS to tax lien you or garnish your wages until you turn in your stuff. This is why Fienstein wants every long gun registered. They will tax you until you conform. Same thing is being used to enforce obamacare. They are using the IRS to enforce the obamacare tax and they will use them to force gun owners to had over their rifles that they deem are banned per the new legislation upcoming.

mt4design
12-28-2012, 6:19 AM
We are moments away from the same acts of tyranny that brought about the necessity for the first American Revolution.

Taxation, without representation.

Redistribution of wealth (though now wealth is transferred to the government and from them to those who "need")

Restrictions on Arms to Colonists

What a tragic development.

People need to remember that Obama has friends who actually carried out acts against the U.S. government as "revolutionaries". Bill Ayers is only one.

Perhaps revolution is exactly what they want.

They cannot fundamentally transform our nation through legitimate and constitutional means.

They can through violent revolution.

They've shown that works recently with their support of the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood. They gave arms to al Queda who then used them to kill our own in Bhengazi.

Taken bit by bit, their actions are difficult to fathom.

Taken as a whole, they become much more dire.

The Bill of Rights cannot be legislated away through illegal acts of infringement.. Unless we allow it.

Mike

Ford8N
12-28-2012, 6:34 AM
Another issue involves grandfathering and transfer bans. I still cannot understand how it is possible that I can own a RAW because I acted at a point in time, but that another fully enfranchised citizen cannot acquire a RAW, even from a fixed supply. Clearly my rights are superior to many of my fellow citizens. How does that comport with equal protection guarantees? I can't see how, yet, the situation exists and has for many years and I am unaware and any likely pending reversal.



Excellent point. I've often wondered that too. Like how something that is a Constitutional right can be prosecuted as a felony in California yet step across an invisible line in the desert and it is perfectly legal. Are we all not citizens of the United States? That's why I say, as a serf living in the Empire of California, we are not citizens of the United States. The whole US Constitution does not exist in California. It's a joke to the rulers in Sacramento. Period.

What you guys forget or over look is how california's assault weapons ban was passed.

It was passed not on the premise that it would or would not infringe on your 2A rights. They addressed it as a public safety issue. and said the the class of weapon listed as assault weapons are a threat to public safety. that right there will get more leverage then any anti 2A fight going.

12275.5. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section 12276 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.

It is a very arrogant law that makes a lot of assumptions. Basically, the rulers do not trust the firearms owners of this state. ALL gun owners in California are potential criminals in their eyes.

ClarenceBoddicker
12-28-2012, 7:11 AM
If machine guns can be banned as they were in 5/19/1986 then all firearms can be banned in the same manner. The SCOTUS has upheld 922o many times.

Cobrafreak
12-28-2012, 7:53 AM
As are all politicians

randomBytes
12-28-2012, 8:29 AM
They don't have to take away your rights, just make it really really tedious and expensive to exercise them

IVC
12-28-2012, 9:01 AM
They don't have to take away your rights, just make it really really tedious and expensive to exercise them

Poll taxes were found unconstitutional. Showing an ultrasound before abortion was found unconstitutional. There is very little room for maneuvering when the sole intent it obstructionism.

Bigotry and maliciousness are as old as the civilization. Every trick they might try has already been tried with some other civil right and has been struck down. It's said that we are forced to fight yet again, but this too shall pass.

mrdd
12-28-2012, 9:37 AM
If machine guns can be banned as they were in 5/19/1986 then all firearms can be banned in the same manner. The SCOTUS has upheld 922o many times.

But the effect of that law only bans manufacture.

Gray Peterson
12-28-2012, 9:56 AM
If machine guns can be banned as they were in 5/19/1986 then all firearms can be banned in the same manner. The SCOTUS has upheld 922o many times.

That solely has to do with the numbers of civilian transferable select fire weapons available at the time of the cut off. Not in common use. See the 9th circuit case US v. Henry.

Gura disagrees with you, & I trust the guy who successfully litigated the issue of 2A twice versus you.

Sublime_AC
12-28-2012, 11:07 AM
I believe they are going to make a move on magazines and bullets. The language in the 2nd amendment does not specifically protect them from legislation.

Gray Peterson
12-28-2012, 11:16 AM
I believe they are going to make a move on magazines and bullets. The language in the 2nd amendment does not specifically protect them from legislation.

Wrong. using that logic, firearms are not protected.

Sublime_AC
12-28-2012, 11:29 AM
Wrong. using that logic, firearms are not protected.

We are not talking about logic, we are talking about the government and their use of nuance / dithering.

I could very well be wrong, but I believe they will regulate magazine capacity and tax the snot out of ammunition.

IVC
12-28-2012, 12:01 PM
We are not talking about logic, we are talking about the government and their use of nuance / dithering.

I could very well be wrong, but I believe they will regulate magazine capacity and tax the snot out of ammunition.

Can't do. What is protected is "arms," not "guns." Without ammunition a gun is a paperweight which is NOT an "arm" and is NOT protected under 2A.

Sublime_AC
12-28-2012, 12:10 PM
Can't do. What is protected is "arms," not "guns." Without ammunition a gun is a paperweight which is NOT an "arm" and is NOT protected under 2A.

They will not outright ban them, they will legislate capacity and taxation.

Totally within their authority.

IVC
12-28-2012, 12:33 PM
They will not outright ban them, they will legislate capacity and taxation.

Totally within their authority.

No. Both of those are textbook examples of "infringement" since they don't serve any compelling government interest except their desire to restrict a right.

While magazine capacity has never been tested and it would remain to be seen whether the government can come up with something that would pass the constitutional muster, the taxation has been successfully challenged with other rights and will not stand.

ScottB
12-28-2012, 12:52 PM
You guys are way too certain about something that has only been affirmed very, very narrowly. IIRC, we have not even established the right to possess guns outside our residences. Any lawyer or kid with a decent grade in high school civics will tell you no right is absolute - not even the ones everyone likes.

There are all kinds of strategies that can effectively deny us most or nearly all of the guns we want, the circumstances under which we own them and where and how we use them. We are getting a good look at some right now. Trust me, before they introduce these bills, all these legislators are being advised by legal counsel as to what they think will pass muster. Heller and McDonald are several years old now and we have very few subsequent gains and also a few losses to show for it.

The idea some have that the battle is won is scary to me. It has barely been joined and will rage for decades, probably longer.

Certainty leads to complacency and complacency leads to loss.

IVC
12-28-2012, 1:05 PM
The battle is far from won, but some of the methods proposed here are a textbook no-go. There is much that needs to be resolved and that can go wrong in defining the boundaries of the rights protected under 2A. However, the toolbox for restrictions *is* limited by the Heller and McDonald, so we can dismiss some more obvious choices of infringement.

We must stay alert, but we should avoid becoming paranoid.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 1:14 PM
No. Both of those are textbook examples of "infringement" since they don't serve any compelling government interest except their desire to restrict a right.


Doesn't matter if there's a "compelling government interest". Heller claims to take "interest balancing" off the table entirely when an infringement of the 2nd Amendment is involved. And deciding whether an infringement is Constitutional on the basis of "compelling government interest" is an "interest balancing" approach, as well as being a way of deciding whether the right is really worth insisting upon. The latter is something that, according to Heller, the very ratification of the 2nd Amendment takes off the table.

chiselchst
12-28-2012, 1:35 PM
Actually, that was chiselchst's reply to my thread posting the Alan Gura video, but yes. I've been watching (and listening) to that piece.

Erik.

Here's the post (worthy of a dupe, IMHO).
You cannot ban an AK or an AR! Listen to Alan Gura at ~1:34:02. Sounds like it would be very vulnerable in court, if it ever became law. Me no lawyer tho...

Wait for Gura to give HIS opinion, after winning the SCOTUS case (starting at 1:34) WAIT FOR IT...

?v=pNN7_TOvaUo

Gray Peterson
12-28-2012, 1:44 PM
We are not talking about logic, we are talking about the government and their use of nuance / dithering.

I could very well be wrong, but I believe they will regulate magazine capacity and tax the snot out of ammunition.

You can't "sin tax" to fund a general welfare program on a fundamental right. This was established with marriage licensing fees & taxes.

IVC
12-28-2012, 2:11 PM
Doesn't matter if there's a "compelling government interest". Heller claims to take "interest balancing" off the table entirely when an infringement of the 2nd Amendment is involved. And deciding whether an infringement is Constitutional on the basis of "compelling government interest" is an "interest balancing" approach, as well as being a way of deciding whether the right is really worth insisting upon. The latter is something that, according to Heller, the very ratification of the 2nd Amendment takes off the table.

Agreed, but my post was more of a general discussion about infringement and taxation of a right representing a typical example of an infringement. The whole "scrutiny" thing is an important, albeit technical detail.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 4:03 PM
Agreed, but my post was more of a general discussion about infringement and taxation of a right representing a typical example of an infringement. The whole "scrutiny" thing is an important, albeit technical detail.

I wouldn't call the "scrutiny" thing a mere "technical detail". It's actually central to the entire discussion.

Heller is the first opinion I know of that takes scrutiny off the table entirely. People here have argued that some level of heightened scrutiny applies when there's an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, that is precisely what the 9th Circuit attempted to assert in Nordyke III.

But the Heller decision takes all scrutiny off the table, precisely because scrutiny itself is an interest-balancing approach and a means of deciding whether the right is really worth insisting upon. No, a plain reading of Heller leaves only categorical analysis, a determination of whether or not the scope of the right includes that which the law impacts, on the table.


That is a major game changer that almost all of the lower courts have refused to acknowledge, and understandably so: they appear to view their job as upholding the law as Constitutional if at all possible for them. They will go to the ends of the earth, and even cite law in other countries, in order to avoid declaring a law Unconstitutional. Lower courts have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

Which is to say, the courts seem to regard their job as an affirmation of the power of government, and not as a check on it. Were that not the case, they would strive to reach the Constitutional question in any case before them, rather than strive to avoid it.

Sublime_AC
12-28-2012, 5:01 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-dems-plan-to-introduce-high-capacity-magazine-ban-on-first-day-of-congressional-session/


House Democrats will waste no time pushing gun control legislation and plan to introduce a bill to ban the production of high-capacity magazines on the first day of the next congressional session, according to the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who is co-sponsoring the bill.

The so-called “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act” will seek to limit magazines, belts, drums, feed strips and “similar device[s]” to 10 rounds of ammunition. While people who own high-capacity magazines and devices would be able to keep them, they would be prohibited from buying others or transferring existing ones.

“The bill would also exempt retired and current law enforcement officials who use those devices for ‘purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty)’ as well as contractors who have been licensed to carry the devices for security purposes required by federal law,” The Huffington Post reports.

Following the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn. earlier this month, calls for gun control have come from many Democratic lawmakers. Sponsors of the bill, including Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) hope the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act will be a compromise for Republicans, as opposed to an all-out assault weapons ban, which many strongly oppose.

However, Reps. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) have reportedly expressed some support for a ban on high-capacity magazines.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not said whether he would allow the bill to the floor for a full vote.

“I’m not so nave as to think that we can pass some law that will stop a deranged person from taking a gun and shooting people…What I am interested in is making it as difficult as possible for that deranged person to shoot as many people as possible,” DeGette told The Huffington Post in a recent interview.

chiselchst
12-28-2012, 5:31 PM
Bupity-Bump....