Our own worst enemy?

[2ifbyC]

There is considerable hypocrisy in the legislative process and we as gun owners are held to a higher level of standard when speaking out to defend our rights. And so it goes.

Verbally abusing our representatives will not will this fight. Letting our emotions rule our judgment will not win this fight. Pointing to other groups using similar tactics will not win this fight.

We are up against many who believe both the inanimate object, the gun, as well as its user are the cause of too much violence. Let’s only allow the gun owner to become the center of focus in a positive sense.

Fighting the good fight is not easy but it is essential.

 

[Spymaster]

We aren't going to be able to weed out all the nut jobs....ther are 80 million gun owners. The antis have plenty of nut jobs on their side. I have never heard any legislators say they won't even consider a bill because the anti crowd was being too annoying....

Seems to me legislators have an obligation to not let that type of behavior influence legislation....it isn't fair to those of us who can act like a civil human being. Sorry, but this whole affair sounds like a big excuse not to have to debate these bills. I don't doubt that whether there were threats or not, that these bills would have never made it to the floor.

After the entire Hans Hunt incident, and now this....I am not sure the Wyoming legislators are exactly acting as they should....

Thats an understatement, the anti's are nut-jobs!

 

[Deer_Freak]

It was pretty clear in the article that one bill was allowed to expire because it created a problem with federal supremacy laws. The nasty phone calls did not help matters a bit.

We are our own worst enemies as far as protecting the second amendment. As mentioned earlier lots of gun owners set a bad example. Most grass roots organizations will run off anyone who loves freedom and the second amendment but they don't agree with the republican platform.

Gun owners need to get our act together as a group. We need to be more tolerant of people who have a (D) beside their name but are willing to spend their time and money to defend the second amendment.

 

[gulogulo1970]

We own weapons, we are feared by some. We must show restraint with our words and actions. We are held to a higher standard. I believe that is why the High Road exists why it doesn't put up with any foolishness.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We own weapons, we are feared by some. We must show restraint with our words and actions. We are held to a higher standard....

An very appropriate observation. A "wing-nut" with a gun is perceived as very different from a "wing-nut" without one.

Well, isn't "sheeple" considered patronising, derogatory speech and indicates an arrogant attitude and bearing with an underling with barely concealed contempt?

It indeed is and should be avoided. We need to better learn how to make friends.

We have to take more seriously our need to be good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners.

It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

 

[Ankeny]

Or we could just call a spade a spade and admit that our side has some serious wingnuts among its ranks, too (and our wingnuts, given they define themselves partly by access to weapons, might be more frightening to the social herd at large).

Yeah, but...that would require taking a look in the mirror and being responsible for our own actions.

 

[627PCFan]

Maybe Im the odd man out here but....I have no issues with their tactics. While Id like to see more refined measures, and do not condone threats.....but lets face it, that kind of pressure can motivate people. In this case it just backfired.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Yeah, but...that would require taking a look in the mirror and being responsible for our own actions.

Responsible for "OUR" actions? I don't think so. People can gripe about it all they want in this thread..those are not OUR actions, they are the actions of a few radicals.

I won't accept they are any more a part of "US" than I will accept that Adam Lanza was one of "US".

 

[swalton1943]

What scares me is the possibility of someone becoming so enraged by the gun-grabbers that he will resort to shooting in some confrontation and give the anti's the excuse they want to act against us.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The comment in the OP link about state laws not overriding federal laws made me instantly think of the Second Amendment. How can the Fed's and the states limit and regulate the Second Amendment so heavily if it is not lawful?

 

[Bill4282]

I learned very young that if you throw rocks at an angry dog, don't complain when you get bit. The antis aren't all nut jobs anymore than all gun owners are sane and responsible. The great thing about this country is the right to speak one's mind without fear of the Gestapo cracking one's skull or going to a lockup indefinitely. I believe in the end reason and Constitutional law will prevail.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The comment in the OP link about state laws not overriding federal laws made me instantly think of the Second Amendment. How can the Fed's and the states limit and regulate the Second Amendment so heavily if it is not lawful?

Here's how things work:

1. Any gun control or gun ban law enacted by Congress or by any State is subject to judicial challenge:
   
   
2. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.
   
   
3. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.
   
   
4. There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:
   
   
   • The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and
     
     
   • The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and
     
     
   • The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).
   
   
5. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.
   
   
6. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.

 

[JRH6856]

The comment in the OP link about state laws not overriding federal laws made me instantly think of the Second Amendment. How can the Fed's and the states limit and regulate the Second Amendment so heavily if it is not lawful?

In addition to what Frank said, if a legislative body passes a law and the chief executive signs it, that law is lawful. And it will be lawful until a court rules otherwise. Throughout our history, there have been many laws passed that were lawfully enforced until challenged and a court ruled they were unconstitutional.

Courts are passive in that they may only rule on matters that come before them so until a law is challenged, it can be in effect for many years before it ever comes before a court for a ruling on constitutionality.

Bad laws are like vermin in your house. Once they get in, they can make a real mess of things before you can get rid of them.

 

[316SS]

The comment in the OP link about state laws not overriding federal laws made me instantly think of the Second Amendment. How can the Fed's and the states limit and regulate the Second Amendment so heavily if it is not lawful?

In addition to what Frank and MicroTecniqs said, even the application of strict scrutiny does not guarantee a ruling that upholds Constitutional protections. As I understand it, the first application of strict scrutiny, after the concept of the three levels of judicial scrutiny was made up by FDR appointee Harlan Stone, was Korematsu v. US, where SCOTUS ruled that internment of American citizens of Japanese decent during WWII passed Constitutional muster. Ouch.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

So taking the definitions of either "Strict Scrutiny" or "Intermediate Scrutiny" requiring the law to have an outcome that supports the reason the law was put into place, and also considering how many of the folks who have proposed or supported the current batch of limitations of the Second Amendment have also stated that they would have likely had no impact at all on the actions that have led to the proposed laws nor will said laws likely prohibit any such future acts, how can they appear with a straight face and expect us to believe that their intents are honorable or their laws are Constitutional? I know it doesn't pass legal muster but the men (and women) in black robes are not infallible and for the most part seem to be either reluctant or ignorant of the very plainly evident nature of the Constitution. Both the Bible and the Constitution are relatively simple to understand documents if you are not trying to undermine the intent of either....

Thanks for your responses gents, although my question was really more of the rhetorical variety....

 

[Serenity]

We are our own worst enemies as far as protecting the second amendment. As mentioned earlier lots of gun owners set a bad example. Most grass roots organizations will run off anyone who loves freedom and the second amendment but they don't agree with the republican platform.

Gun owners need to get our act together as a group. We need to be more tolerant of people who have a (D) beside their name but are willing to spend their time and money to defend the second amendment.

+1

How many of the Enemy have you guys won over to the light side? I can count 2 so far. It's not much, but it's more than none, and it's a darn sight better than turning people on the fence back around in the other direction by calling them names, questioning their intelligence and, worse, their patriotism.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In addition to what Frank said, if a legislative body passes a law and the chief executive signs it, that law is lawful. And it will be lawful until a court rules otherwise. Throughout our history, there have been many laws passed that were lawfully enforced until challenged and a court ruled they were unconstitutional.

Courts are passive in that they may only rule on matters that come before them so until a law is challenged, it can be in effect for many years before it ever comes before a court for a ruling on constitutionality....

Excellent points.

...Bad laws are like vermin in your house...

We might want to reflect on the fact that being constitutional doesn't guarantee that a law is good or good public policy. Some laws are constitutional but bad ideas (at least in the opinions of some people).

...Both the Bible and the Constitution are relatively simple to understand documents if you are not trying to undermine the intent of either....

But that simplistic view is contradicted by the historical reality that there has been considerable disagreement about the meaning and application of both. We don't discuss that Bible here, but there certainly have been differences of opinion regarding the Constitution, and that's why the Founding Fathers assigned final resolution of disputes on that subject to the federal courts.

Imagining that you have a corner on the truth market is a very bad idea.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Not imagining or preaching, just trying to give an example that most people can relate to in at least a minute way.

In the end I fear our population, and therefore our government, has become corrupted to the point that the individual law abiding citizen has the least impact on the creation of new laws or the implementation of existing law.