Clinton and the 2nd Amendment ?

[NOTABIKER]

I did hear she said something about buying the guns back from people like they did in Australia. I heard a guy on the Steven Crowder show saying it was Australia's biggest mistake and the crime has surged. I won't give mine in and anyone looking to physically take it might end up looking like Swiss cheese so I'm not going to abide by any so called laws that infringe on my rights I've already decided.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

She will use the IRS to implement all confiscation.Anything you have a DROS on is on a list. Anything you hide WILL be a felony. So we loose . Not many people will be willing to ruin their life over a gun. Snitches will be a big part of confiscation. What did you expect from a criminal , lier . Honesty

[Mayor McRifle]

Hope you like muskets, because by the time she is done stacking SCOTUS and releasing executive orders on the subject that's about all you'll end up being able to have anymore.

[Mitch]

Reminder: all 55 of California's Electoral College votes will go to Clinton, so it doesn't matter who you vote for for President. And in any case, your vote for city council and Congressman matters a hell of a lot more.

[AceGirlsHusband]

Actually, the Second Amendment has been interpreted in our favor by the Supreme Court for only about eight years, and since then lower courts have felt free to mostly ignore the Heller decision.

Court decisions generally follow societal consensus anyway. It's a false hope to put your trust in the courts. What must happen before we can expect repeated court victories is for the general public at large to embrace gun rights.

But since that would require gun rights advocates and shooting enthusiasts to get out of their comfort zones and actually engage in a polite and informative manner others who have different political and religious beliefs, different ethnic backgrounds, different worldviews, I guess it will never happen.

I am aware of the concept being tested in a Kentucky Court in the early 19th century: Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). And the law was upheld as an individual right at that time. And since its adoption in 1791 the Amendment has been consistently regarded as an individual right. The Court of 2008 may have formalized it, but the interpretation by most of the states and the bulk of the population has been in line with individual right over that very long history. Hence my position that any re-interpretation of the 2nd as NOT being an individual right would be revolutionary and far against the grain of American traditions.

[njineermike]

Reminder: all 55 of California's Electoral College votes will go to Clinton, so it doesn't matter who you vote for for President. And in any case, your vote for city council and Congressman matters a hell of a lot more.

This. McConnell has already stated that if the Republicans hold the Senate, they will fight Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she tries going too far left. It may be complete BS, but I doubt he'll fold as quickly as Boehner folded, and the fact he sat on Obama's pick looks better. Even if you write in Mikey Mouse for president, rebel to support local 2A friendly politicians all the way up to National offices.

[Mitch]

I am aware of the concept being tested in a Kentucky Court in the early 19th century: Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). And the law was upheld as an individual right at that time. And since its adoption in 1791 the Amendment has been consistently regarded as an individual right. The Court of 2008 may have formalized it, but the interpretation by most of the states and the bulk of the population has been in line with individual right over that very long history. Hence my position that any re-interpretation of the 2nd as NOT being an individual right would be revolutionary and far against the grain of American traditions.

For the 70 years preceding Heller, this was the opinion recognized as defining the meaning of the Second Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[L84CABO]

Much will depend on what happens to congress. But you can expect her to move fast within the first 100 days to try and ride her momentum. If congress doesn't change she'll likely attempt to do something through executive order initially. The good news here is that Obama has already done everything that can be done LEGALLY through EO. But this doesn't mean Hildabeast won't try to ram something through and let the courts challenge it.

You can expect that universal background checks, reinstatement of the AWB, and perhaps a universal mag capacity restriction will be top on her priority list. If Dems take over both houses, you can expect they'll try to get these passed immediately.

The long term strategy, however, will be to gut 2A via SCOTUS. She really only needs to replace Scalia to do this but waiting for a second justice to drop would be ideal. But expect them to try to reverse Heller and McDonald once that occurs. And elimination of all semi autos is the brass ring.

[njineermike]

For the 70 years preceding Heller, this was the opinion recognized as defining the meaning of the Second Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

I always found that argument the government made interesting. They argued Miller's sawed off shotgun would have been protected had it been a commonly used military weapon of the time, even though a sawed off shotgun was also a trench gun as used in WWI. It completely defends our current argument about the AR and AK variants.

[AceGirlsHusband]

For the 70 years preceding Heller, this was the opinion recognized as defining the meaning of the Second Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The Miller decision was over the legitimacy of a short barreled shotgun. The 1934 NFA does not declare that individuals do not have a right to keep and bear arms. And the Court didn't say that, either. In fact, Miller and his defense didn't even show for the proceedings, nor was Miller even alive when the judgment was passed. And, thirdly, counsel for the U.S. even argued that 2A protects the rights of individuals to own and possess military style weapons (as Njineermike mentioned).

[ja308]

She is on record as indicating she will do everything in her power to limit the 2nd amendment. The specifics hardly matter. Pick and area involving guns, shooting, etc and she will do what she can to negatively impact it. One small example, her husband significantly increased FFL fees, and as a result, the number of FFL’s nationwide decreased. There are a great many things she can do to create problems for honest gun owners.

Oh you mean the slight increase from $35 to $600 plus ! Is that what you were referring to ? FFLS decreased by 2/3rds

Regarding some antigun republicans,they are better than the antigun democrat's they are running against! It goes to who controls the agenda,in congress and senate.
For the record,the republicans have introduced NO laws to restrict gun owners.

[titan2]

Hi Lad's does anyone know what Clinton will do to the 2nd Amendment if she becomes president ? Will she Re-Instate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban ?

Clinton: What 2nd Amendment???

That 'bout says it all!!!

[WyGoSlw]

Bend over and grab your ankles..

[Noble Cause]

Hillary supports Australian Style Gun Bans and Confiscation:

https://youtu.be/SvcWePEsg94

On October 16, 2015 Hillary Clinton said:





Noble

[AceGirlsHusband]

Hope you like muskets, because by the time she is done stacking SCOTUS and releasing executive orders on the subject that's about all you'll end up being able to have anymore.

And then only if you're listed as a member of the Militia.

[Nick Justice]

The Miller decision was over the legitimacy of a short barreled shotgun. The 1934 NFA does not declare that individuals do not have a right to keep and bear arms. And the Court didn't say that, either. In fact, Miller and his defense didn't even show for the proceedings, nor was Miller even alive when the judgment was passed. And, thirdly, counsel for the U.S. even argued that 2A protects the rights of individuals to own and possess military style weapons (as Njineermike mentioned).

AND... the Court remanded the case to the lower court, giving the co-defendants, Miller and Layton, a chance to provide to the lower court ANY evidence that a SBS could be related to a well-regulated militia.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Suppose that the defense showed that a SBS was "ordinary military equipment", or "contributes to the common defense" ....?

Justice McReynolds was telling the defense everything they needed to overturn the NFA. The defense attorney never showed up to argue, and never followed up with the lower court, because neither Miller nor Layton wanted to pay him. Later, Miller died, and Layton just pled guilty, ending the case.
But this only kept the case up in the air.
Lower courts simply interpreted the case to mean that because no evidence of military use of a SBS was presented to SCOTUS at the Miller hearing, no evidence existed. Had they approached the Miller case in a truly honest way, they should have given later defendants a chance to show the necessary evidence, but the courts never let this happen. They assumed the matter was settled. They wrongly assumed that no evidence existed. A remand means that the case is not over, that the question is not settled. It means that more evidence can be sought and introduced, and further arguments can be made. Since this process never happened, the question of the constitutionality of the NFA remains open.

The whole thing worked a tremendous screwjob on the 2A, and we have never recovered.