Reciprocity Bills Will Protect the Rights of

[lowimpactuser]

Meh, I don't think so. Scalia's originalists theory had a huge impact on the courts. Really it comes down to who gets elected when and who dies when. It's all luck...or fate. I do agree though, the courts are NOT going to bail us out and we really need to start looking toward our elected officials.

Respond to my above analysis of how we can win then.

I would LOVE if originalism is powerful enough to act as Scalia's protector, his ghost, his savior of the 2nd. But originalism could still likely be squished to support gun banners.

Further, judicial philosophy is not stronger than the president and congress that confirm SCOTUS, or even appellate judges. I haven't heard of vast swathes of lawyers boycotting being appointed to positions because they disagree- maybe the closest thing is AGs refusing to argue for gay marriage bans.

Fact is, the numbers are against us. We had literally the best court we could reasonably hope for and they managed to get 2 good cases for us. That's it. The rest of SCOTUS history before 2008 and after 2010 is a big dud.

And again, look at the ways we LOSE (virtually all) and the way we win (one very, very narrow path where everything has to go right). We're at a structural strategic disadvantage, and while we should use all our effort in that way until the 2016 election, we need to seriously have backup plans because the modern conservative court era is done unless everything goes exactly right. Maybe justices will cite nunn or english common law, but results wise it will be almost identical if not identical in deleterious rulings/effects.

[-hanko]

Why would unicorns in your backyard be so good? Horses are already untrustworthy, and giving them a big forehead spike? Trampling your backyard?

As for the bill- of course it won't pass. It's messaging to us- vote for us! We tried at what we knew was a doomed effort. If they REALLY wanted to make it pass, they'd tack it onto a dem bill last minute at 1 minute before voting and rush it through.

^This.

Not to mention...try naming one thing that the federal government has "taken over" from the states that the feds have been able to run more efficiently at less cost. I can think of the interstate highway system, but that's it.

[press1280]

Why would unicorns in your backyard be so good? Horses are already untrustworthy, and giving them a big forehead spike? Trampling your backyard?

As for the bill- of course it won't pass. It's messaging to us- vote for us! We tried at what we knew was a doomed effort. If they REALLY wanted to make it pass, they'd tack it onto a dem bill last minute at 1 minute before voting and rush it through.

Yawn.

Are there any "must pass" bills that'll come up before the election? Seems not much going through right now.
They may send it through as a standalone to get the votes on the record (including getting Hillary's obvious NO in words).

[lowimpactuser]

Are there any "must pass" bills that'll come up before the election? Seems not much going through right now.
They may send it through as a standalone to get the votes on the record (including getting Hillary's obvious NO in words).

Who cares about "votes on the record"? The senate is very crafty about votes they know won't pass- it doesn't tell you who will fold if there actually is a chance. Sad but true.

The senate could offer to actually hold hearings if the senate and president possibly sign, or even confirm; with a whole line of questioning devoted to Garland's thoughts on reciprocity and constitutionality of such a thing.

There might very well be budgets and other things.

The point is, this messaging stuff is insanely boring and inane.
Pull a Hughes FOPA and then I'll contribute or donate $$

[nicki]

Why there should be at least a vote.

Last time it died in the Senate because they could only get 58 votes, the magic number in the US Senate is 60 to avoid a Filibuster.

The number of CCW permits nationwide now exceeds 12 million and that number is rapidly growing. Forcing a vote on this bill means that a person is on record as to either supporting the right to bear arms for Law Abiding Citizens or opposing it.

By the time October comes along, gun sales will be spiking and the number of CCW permits across the country may exceed 15 million.

Of course with Constitutional carry states, the number of people actually carrying may actually start to significantly increase.

42 out of 50 states recognize carry rights, there is the possibility although slim that this could have enough votes to override a veto.

we should push this because if it gets enough traction, there is a .0001 percent chance that our legislature will read the tea leaves and back off on current proposed legislation.

Both Bernie and Hillary suck on this issue and this could be a "deal breaker" with a lot of voters in the general election.



Nicki