Question


PDA






freyasman
December 23, 2012, 09:12 PM
This is for the lawyers and the scholars; is there any way to go on the offensive? Is there legislation that could be introduced to stop the continued push for "gun control", or maybe legal action that could be taken such as a lawsuit? I'm tired of hearing everyone discuss "compromise" and "what will we concede?" as though its a done deal...

If you enjoyed reading about "Question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AlexanderA
December 23, 2012, 10:45 PM
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of '86 was an attempt to "go on the offensive." Look where it got us -- Hughes added his amendment that froze the machine gun registry (which to me and to others in the NFA community is a very big deal), and the NRA refused to kill the bill by having Reagan veto it. I guess the NRA had a lot of its prestige riding on that bill's passage, and they didn't care what particular group of gunowners they ended up throwing under the bus. So doing nothing might be better than doing something that ends up running off the rails. If I sound bitter, that's because I am.

Sam1911
December 23, 2012, 10:58 PM
Hard to see how we could go MORE on the offensive, seeing as the SCOTUS has been landing some pretty heavy artillery for our side recently.

FWIW, the FOPA back in '86 was indeed a great thing for gun owners and that's why the NRA encouraged Reagan to sign it. It was the absolute consensus at the time that the little bit o' evil snuck into it by a creeping weasel under very suspect circumstances would never stand up to review and would be struck down within a year or so. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and we've all been regretting it ever since. It is good, though, to remember that many of us benefit from most of the other provisions all the time, as disgusting as the Hughes Amendment still is. NRA gambled there -- thinking that in those darkish days that was the best chance they'd have for the reforms we needed, and that ugly business with Weasel Hughes was not enough to poison pill the bill.

Do we really wish FOPA didn't ever get passed? At this point it is hard to really say. Much good, some bad. On the balance?

freyasman
December 24, 2012, 08:18 AM
What about a civil suit against Diane Feinstein, or one of the others, for civil rights violations, or "infliction of emotional distress"?

gc70
December 24, 2012, 08:59 AM
US Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

... for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

You can't sue a member of Congress for proposing laws or discussing their proposals.

Bubbles
December 24, 2012, 09:58 AM
Heller II, which challenges DC's ban on semi-auto rifles and magazines that hold more than 30 rounds, has been quietly making its way through the federal court system for a few years.

Frank Ettin
December 24, 2012, 03:37 PM
What about a civil suit against Diane Feinstein, or one of the others, for civil rights violations, or "infliction of emotional distress"? No, for a whole bunch of reasons. BUT --

[1] We have over 70 lawsuits on major RKBA matters in various stages in various federal courts around the country. Many of these are being supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and other solid groups, and we have some excellent legal representation.

[2] As far a legislation goes, there is in theory all sorts of things we could do. However, in order to get legislation passed, we need the political support and legislative votes. In the States in which we have that, we really don't need much right now. In the State in which we need favorable legislation, we don't have the political clout.

freyasman
December 25, 2012, 10:04 AM
Thanks guys, I always figured there was a reason, but I would've felt really stupid for not asking.:o

planetmobius
December 26, 2012, 11:38 PM
You're asking a legal question when you should be asking a public opinion or cultural question. The left is on the offensive once again and the right is on the defensive once again because the left hijacks the language and defines the arguement. They have done this with race relations, redistribution, illegal imigration etc. etc. They redefine the terminology, label us and then appeal to the emotions of all of the low information voters with half logic. The left is willing to make unprecidented noise, name call, make threats and generally debase themselves without a moment of embarassment. Take a look at Madison Wisconsin durring the Walker recall or any G-8 summit or Detroit durring the recent Right to Work legislation or any Occupy Wall Street camp. Compare their behavior with how they were reported, or not reported. Then look at the behavior of the Tea Party and compare it with how they were portrayed.

We can file law suits and maybe win some battles. But that will only go on until the left changes the culture behind the scenes and makes it impossible to install judges and legislators sympathetic to any of our causes including the 2nd Ammendment.

Until we relalize that the call to civility is really just an invitation for us to shut up. Until you can bring yourself to look your anti 2nd Ammendment neighbor in the eye and explain to him why he is unamerican and unpatriotic and advance the arguement that you already know to be true. Untill you can attack the left's arguements on racism, immigration, identity politics, critical race theory, gun control and every other culturally undermining movement head on, you will be on the defensive. Wayne Lapierre recently said that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. I say the only way to stop a loud aggressive scheming liberal movement is with a loud aggressive scheming conservative movement.

Legal decisions on any of these issues, one way or the other, including gun control are merely symptoms of the current cultural state of our nation. That is why you cannot win the legal war without winning the cultural war first, and you are in a cultural war. Sometines the "high road" is characterized by discretion and restraint. But sometimes the natural conservative tendency to employ these things makes us mistake the "high road" for the one that leads to the gallows. Sometimes the "high road" consists of crushing that which is rotting your nation from the inside out. Review your Andrew Breitbart footage and formulate a comprehensive plan. If each of us did this, we couldn't lose.

cc1970
December 30, 2012, 12:41 AM
My words probably ignorant, but we should stop politicians from "touching", (read amending) our Constitution anytime they need/want to.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!