PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 24, 2016, 01:15:31 PM
-
What would be the necessary steps to LEOs taking guns away from citizens?
Wouldn't a necessary step be the election of politicians who want to take them away?
-
It may look, and work like this:
The laws were passed after the Port Arthur massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
The government doesn't need to confiscate them, just ban them and make them illegal to own. Caught with one, and go to jail.
-
What would be the necessary steps to LEOs taking guns away from citizens?
Wouldn't a necessary step be the election of politicians who want to take them away?
Not politicians, just one politician. If we elect a president who will staff the Supreme Court with justices who believe that the militia is the state government's army then The People will lost all rights to own guns for any purposes. That's the first step. Then since the Supreme Court will not change quickly, any gun rights case that comes before it will be decided in favor of banning. Within a matter or months or years, some states will no longer allow any gun ownership except to the criminals.
How that gets reversed is a matter of luck - a pro-gun president within the next 15 years who happens to be there at the right times when justices retire or pass away. If it goes past 15 years, it will be settled law and we will all become powerless slaves. Not really good odds.
-
It may look, and work like this:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
The government doesn't need to confiscate them, just ban them and make them illegal to own. Caught with one, and go to jail.
Thanks for posting this article. These are the same points I was making in the other thread (this article did a better job). You quoted only one part of it, though. If you continue to read the article, it goes onto describe how it's not a realistic option to confiscate guns through a forced buy back program. The article cites New York and Connecticut residents not complying with the laws those states passed and nobody is enforcing it there.
The left can dream all they want about it and they can even chip away at it slowly, but they can't remove the guns that exist.
-
The left can dream all they want about it and they can even chip away at it slowly, but they can't remove the guns that exist.
However, they can render them unusable, and useless by outlawing them. What good is a gun if you can't take it to a range, or use it when needed or for hunting, target shooting, etc.?
-
However, they can render them unusable, and useless by outlawing them. What good is a gun if you can't take it to a range, or use it when needed or for hunting, target shooting, etc.?
This, in the great anus of a state, Massachusetts, getting caught with the wrong gun, even if licensed, is a felony. I'm talking hand guns and rifles here, not machine guns.
-
However, they can render them unusable, and useless by outlawing them. What good is a gun if you can't take it to a range, or use it when needed or for hunting, target shooting, etc.?
Do you think states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc. are actually going to enforce those laws as they're simultaneously passing laws that bring them closer to Constitutional carry status? (Arizona is already there). New York and Connecticut aren't even enforcing their laws, I really don't think deep red states will either. Are you going to post federal agents at every gun range? What about in states where you can go out into the middle of nowhere to shoot? How do you catch those?
That article did a really good job of outlining why Australian style gun laws won't work here. Even their former Prime Minister acknowledged that they didn't have a constitutional right to it like we do.
-
Not politicians, just one politician. If we elect a president who will staff the Supreme Court with justices who believe that the militia is the state government's army then The People will lost all rights to own guns for any purposes. That's the first step.
I believe the steps are really like this:
(0) Compliant senate must also affirm anti-gun judge(s) to the SCOTUS.
(1) A local government (city, county, state, or whatever) enacts a restrictive gun law.
(2) Either a gun owner who is affected brings a case (e.g. law is unconstitutional per second amendment) or gun owner is charged with a crime.
(3) Court considers arguments. If gun owner was charged with a crime and wins at this step, in most states that is the end of things. Otherwise the gun owner may appeal an adverse ruling.
(4) Appeals court considers any alleged error. If gun owner was charged with a crime and the appeals court reverses the lower court, again this may be the end of things. Otherwise an affirm by this court makes an appeal to SCOTUS possible.
(5) Assuming SCOTUS takes the appealed case, they make a deliberation. Anti-gun judges must be creative in their arguments.
So the route to a gun ban by judicial "legislation" requires more than just a compliant SCOTUS. A few more actors are needed in the chain.
-
What would be the necessary steps to LEOs taking guns away from citizens?
It would look like this at my house.
-
Do you think states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc. are actually going to enforce those laws as they're simultaneously passing laws that bring them closer to Constitutional carry status? (Arizona is already there). New York and Connecticut aren't even enforcing their laws, I really don't think deep red states will either. Are you going to post federal agents at every gun range? What about in states where you can go out into the middle of nowhere to shoot? How do you catch those?
That article did a really good job of outlining why Australian style gun laws won't work here. Even their former Prime Minister acknowledged that they didn't have a constitutional right to it like we do.
Once Hillary packs the SCOTUS with far left, anti 2A justices, and they get a case, overturn Heller, and interpret the 2A as NOT an individual right, then all bets are off. They can pressure the states and withhold Federal funds, and do other things to make them comply. It is going to be a shit storm.
It may be a slow attrition, but guns can and will go away over time. The populace has been indoctrinated to think all guns, even legally owned ones are evil, and dangerous.
-
It may look, and work like this:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
The government doesn't need to confiscate them, just ban them and make them illegal to own. Caught with one, and go to jail.
Australia has no constitutional right to bear arms. Despite the voice of some liberals, Australia is not a good comparative model.
-
Australia has no constitutional right to bear arms. Despite the voice of some liberals, Australia is not a good comparative model.
Hillary's court can and will neuter the 2A. Don't you read my posts? They will rule it is a government militia right only.
-
If we ban guns, then the real criminals will merely buy illegal guns smuggled in across the Mexican border. This will virtually assure that honest citizens are unarmed while criminals are not. And I don't know how many jobs in America are based on the legal manufacture and distribution of guns, but that will drop to zero.
Unless we build a wall!
-
Hillary's court can and will neuter the 2A. Don't you read my posts? They will rule it is a government militia right only.
I don't think they will. Regardless, the path to gun bans in the US would be markedly different than Australia's.
-
Hillary's court can and will neuter the 2A. Don't you read my posts? They will rule it is a government militia right only.
Good luck enforcing that.
-
Good luck enforcing that.
You think federal agents won't show up and enforce Hillary's will?
-
You think federal agents won't show up and enforce Hillary's will?
They'll need to follow Col Trautman's advice on what to bring to the party.
-
Good luck enforcing that.
So nobody rolled over for the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban"? We let them take us down to ten round mags, and neutered rifles. Many states now have the same or worse bans. Look up New York's "Safe Act".
-
So nobody rolled over for the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban"? We let them take us down to ten round mags, and neutered rifles. Many states now have the same or worse bans. Look up New York's "Safe Act".
And what was your great savior's position on the AWB?
-
You think federal agents won't show up and enforce Hillary's will?
The people who will show up, force their way into people's homes and 'search' for weapons and other contraband will look a lot like UN soldiers and people like Kristen will standing right them cheering. The true blue leftists will pop a decade long bone about abusing people under the cover of a UN resolution.
-
The people who will show up, force their way into people's homes and 'search' for weapons and other contraband will look a lot like UN soldiers and people like Kristen will standing right them cheering. The true blue leftists will pop a decade long bone about abusing people under the cover of a UN resolution.
What does the United Nations have to do with any of this?
(I seem to have misplaced my playbill for this drama and a new villain has entered from stage left.)
-
Once Hillary packs the SCOTUS with far left, anti 2A justices, and they get a case, overturn Heller, and interpret the 2A as NOT an individual right, then all bets are off. They can pressure the states and withhold Federal funds, and do other things to make them comply. It is going to be a shit storm.
It may be a slow attrition, but guns can and will go away over time. The populace has been indoctrinated to think all guns, even legally owned ones are evil, and dangerous.
I don't think it's as simple as you're making it seem. You're also acting like it's a done deal if she's elected, and it's not. She will certainly try, but I don't think she's going to get very far. Even if she does pack SCOTUS with radical anti-2nd Amendment justices (very likely) there has to be the right case to come before them and it has to be narrow enough of a ruling.
-
Even if she does pack SCOTUS with radical anti-2nd Amendment justices (very likely) there has to be the right case to come before them and it has to be narrow enough of a ruling.
You don't think that Hillary's "Justice" dept which has been proven to be just another political arm couldn't come up with a case?
-
You don't think that Hillary's "Justice" dept which has been proven to be just another political arm couldn't come up with a case?
Sure, anything is possible. But some of the attitudes I'm seeing here is as if this is a done deal that as soon as she's elected, guns are illegal and will be confiscated. I just don't think that's the case or how it'll go.
-
Some people are claiming that the Government won't take away our guns.
Why do you believe that?
Are there any States in which possessing a standard capacity AR-15 magazine is now illegal?
Are there any States in which possessing a so-called "Assault Weapon" is now illegal?
Are there any firearms which are illegal to possess in California?
What will guarantee that States won't continue to erode Second Amendment rights?
-
Some people are claiming that the Government won't take away our guns.
Why do you believe that?
Are there any States in which possessing a standard capacity AR-15 magazine is now illegal?
Are there any States in which possessing a so-called "Assault Weapon" is now illegal?
Are there any firearms which are illegal to possess in California?
What will guarantee that States won't continue to erode Second Amendment rights?
Just look at NY, MD, NJ, CT, RI, CA, HI, MA, and other states that have restricted/banned popular, common rifles, and handguns, and limited magazine capacities, and other draconian restrictions. States violate the 2A illegally all the time, and the COURTS uphold these crimes.
-
I don't think they will. Regardless, the path to gun bans in the US would be markedly different than Australia's.
Have you not read the dissent in Heller?
"The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
Read that again, and tell me that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg would change their opinion, or Justices Sotamayor, Kagan, and a new justice appointed by Hillary wouldn't agree with Souter and Stevens in this dissent.
To summarize: FOUR USSC Justices did NOT see an individual right to keep and bear arms. FOUR. IT WILL TAKE ONLY ONE MORE, and another Second amendment case, to reverse Heller.
It is either insufficient or disingenuous to just say "I don't think they will."
-
Some people are claiming that the Government won't take away our guns.
Why do you believe that?
Are there any States in which possessing a standard capacity AR-15 magazine is now illegal?
Are there any States in which possessing a so-called "Assault Weapon" is now illegal?
Are there any firearms which are illegal to possess in California?
What will guarantee that States won't continue to erode Second Amendment rights?
This goes back to the incorporation doctrine. If you believe that the Constitution is not incorporated then the States can ban them if they so choose. I believe that Chicago v. MacDonald actually made the 2nd Amendment incorporated, however so it's a moot point for now.
Yes, there are states that are doing that. There are also states that are moving (some quicker than others) towards Constitutional carry. More state legislatures now are controlled by Republicans that at any other point in history.
-
Have you not read the dissent in Heller?
"The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
Read that again, and tell me that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg would change their opinion, or Justices Sotamayor, Kagan, and a new justice appointed by Hillary wouldn't agree with Souter and Stevens in this dissent.
To summarize: FOUR USSC Justices did NOT see an individual right to keep and bear arms. FOUR. IT WILL TAKE ONLY ONE MORE, and another Second amendment case, to reverse Heller.
It is either insufficient or disingenuous to just say "I don't think they will."
I had not read the dissent until I read your snippet of it. It is alarming and certainly eye opening. I've also never claimed that the SCOTUS wouldn't over turn Heller. What I've said is that I don't find it likely that guns are going away anytime soon. There are states out there that will not enforce the federal statutes should they change and some states may even go so far as to actively stop federal law enforcement from enforcing said laws.
I agree that the SCOTUS is one vote away from overturning Heller, but I also don't think it's likely to happen in Hillary's term. I hope I'm right.
-
I agree that the SCOTUS is one vote away from overturning Heller, but I also don't think it's likely to happen in Hillary's term. I hope I'm right.
I don't feel comfortable in the hope that you are correct.
Hope is not a strategy
-
I don't feel comfortable in the hope that you are correct.
Hope is not a strategy
It's not meant to be, it was merely my opinion.
-
Another member, in the "Weapons of War" thread brought up a very common argument from anti (legal) gun people, groups, and politicians use. They link legal gun ownership with "sporting purpose", usually meaning hunting, but can also mean target shooting, competition, etc. There is nothing about sport shooting, nor hunting in the Second Amendment. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. It is purely for defense, period.
Standard capacity magazines in which many common firearms use, typically 15 - 18 in handguns, and 20 - 30 in rifles are necessary as often criminals, and attackers (being cowards) come in bunches. There are many instances where crimes like home invasions, car jackings, etc have a mob of assailants. Why should we be even at a great disadvantage, and risk because we are limited to seven or ten rounds. I say seven because the NY Safe Act prohibits carrying more than seven rounds in a gun. How they came up with that number, I'll never know.
So if you have five individuals breaking into your house, then you basically can not miss, and we all know in the heat of battle, adrenaline can really affect you. Also, one round rarely stops the threat of an attacker, especially if they are on drugs, and/or of large stature.
-
Another member, in the "Weapons of War" thread brought up a very common argument from anti (legal) gun people, groups, and politicians use. They link legal gun ownership with "sporting purpose", usually meaning hunting, but can also mean target shooting, competition, etc. There is nothing about sport shooting, nor hunting in the Second Amendment. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. It is purely for defense, period.
Standard capacity magazines in which many common firearms use, typically 15 - 18 in handguns, and 20 - 30 in rifles are necessary as often criminals, and attackers (being cowards) come in bunches. There are many instances where crimes like home invasions, car jackings, etc have a mob of assailants. Why should we be even at a great disadvantage, and risk because we are limited to seven or ten rounds. I say seven because the NY Safe Act prohibits carrying more than seven rounds in a gun. How they came up with that number, I'll never know.
So if you have five individuals breaking into your house, then you basically can not miss, and we all know in the heat of battle, adrenaline can really affect you. Also, one round rarely stops the threat of an attacker, especially if they are on drugs, and/or of large stature.
Agreed with everything except the bolded portion. The 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent a tyrannical government from controlling the people in the future. Defense is a by-product.
-
What I've said is that I don't find it likely that guns are going away anytime soon. There are states out there that will not enforce the federal statutes should they change and some states may even go so far as to actively stop federal law enforcement from enforcing said laws.
I agree that the SCOTUS is one vote away from overturning Heller, but I also don't think it's likely to happen in Hillary's term. I hope I'm right.
I am not as optimistic as you. I think one of Hillary's first order of business will be more gun control, and not just with cosmetics of guns, but real bans with no grandfathering using the courts of course. I also think the states will comply as the Feds can withhold funds, and/or send in Federal law enforcement to force them to comply.
My state (Commonwealth) of PA has relatively good gun laws. We are shall issue with no guns, nor magazines banned. However, we have a very liberal/progressive, Democrat (same thing) governor who would hand over our rights with glee. In the PA Constitution, our version of the 2A reads, "The Right to Keep, and Bear Arms Shall Not be Questioned." It is even stronger than the Fed 2A, yet it will get preempted.
-
Agreed with everything except the bolded portion. The 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent a tyrannical government from controlling the people in the future. Defense is a by-product.
You're right. I was going to add that, but thought that "Defense against a tyrannical government", and self defense were similar in nature, ultimately, however thanks for clarifying that.
-
I am not as optimistic as you. I think one of Hillary's first order of business will be more gun control, and not just with cosmetics of guns, but real bans with no grandfathering using the courts of course. I also think the states will comply as the Feds can withhold funds, and/or send in Federal law enforcement to force them to comply.
My state (Commonwealth) of PA has relatively good gun laws. We are shall issue with no guns, nor magazines banned. However, we have a very liberal/progressive, Democrat (same thing) governor who would hand over our rights with glee. In the PA Constitution, our version of the 2A reads, "The Right to Keep, and Bear Arms Shall Not be Questioned." It is even stronger than the Fed 2A, yet it will get preempted.
I'm optimistic in the people of this country, not the government. I also don't think Hillary will come in and outright ban guns, though. I say that because if she does that immediately (or anytime during her first two years), she will lose the Senate (assuming it goes back to Democratic control during the election) and possibly re-election. She will also put a lot of democratic representatives and senators in a bad spot because there are many who come from states where gun rights are popular.
-
The NY Safe for Criminals and Tyrants Act
-
What does the United Nations have to do with any of this?
(I seem to have misplaced my playbill for this drama and a new villain has entered from stage left.)
The UN is a cheer leading pack of wolves where gun ownership is concerned and people like Obama and Clinton will use them to take our guns when the time is right. Why do you think John f'ing Kerry supported the UN treaty on disarming civilians?
http://www.forbes.com/profile/hillary-clinton/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/#7e32b87b38a2
-
The UN is a cheer leading pack of wolves where gun ownership is concerned and people like Obama and Clinton will use them to take our guns when the time is right. Why do you think John f'ing Kerry supported the UN treaty on disarming civilians?
http://www.forbes.com/profile/hillary-clinton/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/#7e32b87b38a2
Ah, I see.
The treaty mentioned involves international trade, not domestic. (Found the full text here: https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf (https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf)
Unless conservatives work even harder than they have to nominate self-destructive candidates to federal office, I don't see that treaty ever being ratified anyway.
Lastly, the SCOTUS has ruled in the past that the U.S. Constitution supersedes treaties ratified by the senate (which requires a 2/3rd vote.)
-
The erosion has already started with the guns themselves. The AWB was a test, even though it wasn't renewed, they know there really wasn't much pushback. The real problems won't start with the guns themselves, but with the ability to procure ammo.
-
The erosion has already started with the guns themselves. The AWB was a test, even though it wasn't renewed, they know there really wasn't much pushback. The real problems won't start with the guns themselves, but with the ability to procure ammo.
You were right!!
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-warships-big-guns-have-no-bullets