No New Gun Control Bills Will Pass This Congress

Tinman357 said:

Is contempt of court not a crime? I would assume that contempt of the supreme court to be viewed as a bit more serious.

Click to expand...

Contempt of a local court is enforceable by issuance of Bench Warrants through the Bailiff.

Appellate courts technically only "rule" over their 'subservient' Courts.

In the present case(s) the Legislatures are acting pre-emptively, they are creating new legislation "on the fly" as it were, rather than enforcing the bills found Unconstitutional. It's sort of an "end around." It's entirely foolish, and largely for the "theater" of it. Many of these new actions are flagrantly in violation of the Court's stated opinions (including the Concurrences in several cases). And, by all appearances, the parties involved just Don't Care. They are embracing Expediency. The presumption that they will be safely out of office by the time these new diktats are found to be specious and void.

"They" have had "there way" for so long, "they" refuse to believe it can be any other way. And, this could tumble down around them in ways they cannot presently imagine. Like if the NFA is found wanting. Like where Ninth Circus is like to find itself with all the CA laws gutted. Which ought make Inslee sweat a bit, too. HI is talking about making OC legal, with a permit, to be in compliance. Which could make "barbecue guns" the new HI hipness. We just don't know right now.

Basura Blanca said:

This is the folly of being overly reliant on the courts to fix everything.
Every successful rights movement got to where they are because of a shift in public perception to their cause, not just the breathing room created by legal decree. It will be a long slog toward victory until we capitalize on that.

Click to expand...

From an historical perspective, I fully agree, however, if we don't find a way to reign in these mass shootings, we're going to lose that battle.

The next generation of voters are watching, and they're pissed, because it's their friends and people who look like them who are being killed. Trust me, they absolutely do not care one iota about the Constiution-only results.

D.B. Cooper said:

however, if we don't find a way to rein in these mass shootings, we're going to lose that battle.

Click to expand...

This exactly. Each mass shooting hurts the cause of gun rights; ergo, it's in our interest as gun owners to try to prevent mass shootings. The only way to do this, in my opinion, is to make it much harder for troubled young men to obtain deadly weapons. The details are open to discussion, but doing nothing is not an option.

AlexanderA said:

The only way to do this, in my opinion, is to make it much harder for troubled young men to obtain deadly weapons. The details are open to discussion, but doing nothing is not an option.

Click to expand...

The problem with this line of thinking is that 2A is a right. Troubled or not, young men have a right to keep and bear arms just like the rest of society. The goal SHOULD NOT be preventing entire classes of people from getting weapons, but rather doing a better job raising our children to respect the sanctity of life and instilling upon them the extreme responsibility inherent with all rights, including gun ownership.

These mass shootings could be considered a transition of the extremely divisive contemporary culture war, into a shooting war. Things will get worse before they get better, regardless of the laws that are passed.

I know we all breathe a sigh of relief when we have (R) controlled branches of government and we are all hopeful that this November will be a red wave, but correct me if I'm wrong here but don't we generally have more restrictive gun control bills pass when (R's) are firmly in control?

Between the over-medication of school children, the nihilism that is the common result of simply being a student in public schools and the fame (immortality?) heaped upon each shooter by the media, mass shootings are likely to continue... .

General Geoff said:

The problem with this line of thinking is that 2A is a right. Troubled or not, young men have a right to keep and bear arms just like the rest of society. The goal SHOULD NOT be preventing entire classes of people from getting weapons, but rather doing a better job raising our children to respect the sanctity of life and instilling upon them the extreme responsibility inherent with all rights, including gun ownership.

These mass shootings could be considered a transition of the extremely divisive contemporary culture war, into a shooting war. Things will get worse before they get better, regardless of the laws that are passed.

Click to expand...

Well said and very true.

We need to fix the cultural issues. Look back 30+ years ago, it was common to see guns on display in pickup window in school parking lots. And there weren't any issues or mass shootings back then. We were taught right from wrong and to respect others.

I see several issues with kids and young adults. Single parent households, fathers being pushed out of kids lives, video games and phones/tablets being used as babysitters, and the over medication of children.

The lack of proper diets adds to the mental health issues with younger people too. I have personally seen kids diagnosed with ADHD and/or bipolar actually improve when given a proper and balanced diet instead of fast easy meals full of junk.

As a former teacher ( retired 20 yrs ago ) and life long shooter/gun owner, I think I can identify part of the problem. It dates back to the “Great Society” of LBJ. In all of the civil rights legislation ( much of which was sorely needed) the nuclear family was in a large way damaged… fathers were not present….drugs and booze became socially desirable…Viet Nam happened with all its attendant problems, political, social, and ideological. We now have a generation of snowflakes who don’t want to hear facts or truth ( case in point Hochuls statement that she didn’t need a data point she was going to protect the citizens of NY in spite of the SCOTUS. Fewer than 25% of our young can meet, even the lowered, standards that the services are now requiring for enlistment. In short we’re in a ****storm, and it’s going to take a major change in DC and the rest of society to clean it up.
A former principal of mine said everyone wants standards but no one wants them to apply to their kids. We’ll we’re in the circumstance now where I’m not sure they want any standards. In the name of equity we’re doing away with cash bail, we’re letting felons out without any punishment at all, we’re changing grading standards, we’re allowing schools to give instruction in LGBTQA+ in primary grades.
It’s all part of what Obama started when he called for a “ fundamental transformation of America”. If anyone has read Heinleins Starship Troopers you can see how he treated the societal breakdown similar to what we’ve now got. I think a major Red Wave in November can go a long way towards stopping the “New World Order” that the self styled elite in Davos Switzerland are talking about. If we don’t fight back we’ll see 1984 and Brave New World happening.
I’m sure many here have patiently explained many times what AR stands for and how the 223 /5.56 round is not the powerful round the press makes it out to be , but we’re fighting the mainstream media who repeats (as gospel) Bidens statement that a 9 mm “ will blow the lung right out of your body”. All I am trying to say is we have to keep rationally and calmly present facts to try and counter the hype. I hope we can do it. But, I feel their minds are made up and no amount of reason will convince them. They refuse to recognize that every weekend Chicago has the equivalent of a mass shooting.
Nuff said I know…I’m preaching to the choir

General Geoff said:

The goal SHOULD NOT be preventing entire classes of people from getting weapons, but rather doing a better job raising our children...

Click to expand...

I agree. Once we start down that path, at some point, you and I are going to be part of an "entire class of people."

But like I said, the next generation of voters don't care about rights or the Constitution. They want results. Ask them about cancel culture and the first amendment. They don't care if "one day, some day" they might be the ones getting canceled and silenced; they want the hate speech and racism to stop. (And they hold a very broad definition of hate speech.) They don't care what it takes.

So arguments about "it's a right" don't really hold any water.

General Geoff said:

These mass shootings could be considered a transition of the extremely divisive contemporary culture war, into a shooting war. Things will get worse before they get better, regardless of the laws that are passed.

Click to expand...

I've never thought of it that way. That's a very chilling statement. Hope you're wrong.

12Bravo20 said:

We need to fix the cultural issues.

Click to expand...

That ship has sailed. A young woman asked me, back in early 2016, when Trump says make America great again, when is he talking about?

I jokingly said 1954. Believe me when I say that almost no one wants to return to that culture. So when you say "thirty years ago...bla bla bla..." young voters instantly tune out.

PS: I keep referencing "young voters" because, while they're not voting now, they will by the time they're 25-30. So we've got about 10 years before they become an active voting block. Mean while, the traditionally more conservative voting block of 50-60 years old and older, is dying off. The pendulum is about to swing hard. (It already has on other issues, but we're not going there.)

Counting on the Supreme Court to secure the 2nd amendment is, ultimately, a losing strategy. The Court is naturally a backward-looking institution. Its members were mostly appointed by presidents who have long go left office. (even died) SO their values and their viewpoints are out of sync with much of the populous. (Hence all the recent commotion.) SO yeah, Trump's appointees will be around for 30 years, but after that?

Our present culture routinely ignores many "warning signs" of future mayhem, be it threat of a mass shooting or a host of other violent indicators. Every day courts release violent offenders into our society thru no bail, wrist slap punishment, early release policies, refusal to prosecute violent offenses yet prosecuting those who defend their homes; the list is very long. The Anti 2A mob hide behind their faux outrage; all the while fueling the fires of violence against our most sacred traditions, national institutions, and the people who support such traditions. They are the perpetrators of violence and they do it every day all day with the support and encouragement of a compliant media and weak-kneed politicians. We can board-up our schools and make them impregnable, arm our teachers, and assign safety guards at every location. None of this will change the attitudes of the Anti 2A mob. We have to educate everyone and legally destroy every avenue the Mob takes.

General Geoff said:

The problem with this line of thinking is that 2A is a right. Troubled or not, young men have a right to keep and bear arms just like the rest of society.

Click to expand...

All rights have limitations. The problem, as I see it, is separating the "troubled" from the untroubled. All these mass shooters had warning signs that were overlooked. Putting an age requirement of 21 or 25 for semiautomatic rifles would not be unreasonable. Make it 18 for bolt action rifles and shotguns, 21 for revolvers, and 25 for semiautomatics. Or something like that. Have people work their way up on the scale of responsibility. Balance age with potential destructiveness.

General Geoff said:

These mass shootings could be considered a transition of the extremely divisive contemporary culture war, into a shooting war. Things will get worse before they get better, regardless of the laws that are passed.

Click to expand...

That's why I tell all my liberal friends to arm themselves!

AlexanderA said:

In an ideal world, delegations from the pro-gunners and the antigunners could sit down in a locked room, and work out a deal that would (partially) serve the interests of both sides.

Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is a right, not something to change or negotiate because it doesn't fit some groups political ideology. The groups that want to change the 2a are the groups it was put in the Constitution to protect us from.

AlexanderA said:

All rights have limitations. The problem, as I see it, is separating the "troubled" from the untroubled. All these mass shooters had warning signs that were overlooked. Putting an age requirement of 21 or 25 for semiautomatic rifles would not be unreasonable. Make it 18 for bolt action rifles and shotguns, 21 for revolvers, and 25 for semiautomatics. Or something like that. Have people work their way up on the scale of responsibility. Balance age with potential destructiveness.

Click to expand...

What other enumerated constitutional right is limited to 25 year olds and above? 2A exists specifically to protect contemporary military arms and possession of them by fighting-age men (and women in modern times). Strictly speaking, people should have ready access to select-fire ARs, M240s and 249s, hand grenades, and MANPADs.

If an 18 year old is fit to join the Army and die for our country, he's old enough to exercise his 2A right and buy/own an autoloading rifle or pistol at the very least.

General Geoff said:

What other enumerated constitutional right is limited to 25 year olds and above? 2A exists specifically to protect contemporary military arms and possession of them by fighting-age men (and women in modern times). Strictly speaking, people should have ready access to select-fire ARs, M240s and 249s, hand grenades, and MANPADs.

If an 18 year old is fit to join the Army and die for our country, he's old enough to exercise his 2A right and buy/own an autoloading rifle or pistol at the very least.

Click to expand...

Or vote.

kidneyboy said:

The 2nd amendment is a right, not something to change or negotiate because it doesn't fit some groups political ideology. The groups that want to change the 2a are the groups it was put in the Constitution to protect us from.

Click to expand...

The 2A is there, our founders knew that things might change and put in place a system to remove and add amendments. I always go back to the 18th and 21st as picture perfect examples of this.

If someone wants the 2A gone use our existing system, that is why these systems exist.

What I can't get is how the people that are far these restrictions are so clueless to the subject.

If it wasn’t for his efforts none would have just passed!

Too little too late for Mr Cornyn. He must think we are pretty stupid or just plain suckers.

At least a Democrat will tell me they want to take away the 2nd Amendment. I have more respect for that than to say you want to protect it for me and then your actions don’t match your word…

I hope his days as a politician are over, maybe he can become a CNN or MSMBC contributor.

Remington1911 said:

What I can't get is how the people that are far these restrictions are so clueless to the subject.

Click to expand...

Mostly because they stopped teaching history. A lot of other reasons too but not teaching history leads to all the other reasons.

Tinman357 said:

Is contempt of court not a crime?

Click to expand...

Entering the Country illegally is a crime this administration is actively facilitating. Both before and after it takes place.

The mostly peaceful protests (aka riots, burning property, etc) were all illegal too, as are all of the crimes in the “dramatic increase”.

Not enforcing the laws allows more people to ignore them.

Idiots then want them to add more laws to the books they can selectively enforce. Pretty stupid but here we are…

General Geoff said:

If an 18 year old is fit to join the Army and die for our country, he's old enough to exercise his 2A right and buy/own an autoloading rifle or pistol at the very least.

Click to expand...

False analogy. The Army is a strictly circumscribed environment.

kidneyboy said:

The 2nd amendment is a right, not something to change or negotiate because it doesn't fit some groups political ideology.

Click to expand...

You're saying this as if the 2nd Amendment is absolute. It's not, and even the most pro-gun judges (Scalia, Thomas, etc.) admit that it's not. There's lots of room for negotiation within the parameters of what regulations are allowed.

By taking an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, we're letting lots of opportunities for incremental improvement slip through our fingers. I'd like to see true compromises, where we get something in exchange for giving up something.

D.B. Cooper said:

I've been thinking about this. The words of Andrew Jackson: "The Supreme Court made their decision. Now let them enforce it." are eerily too familiar. I really can't think of way to physically force a state to comply with the ruling-certainly not under present leadership.

On the other hand, I suspect that Supreme Court Justices don't like governors thumbing their noses at them. Thinking about how Thomas tried to foresee some of this and head it off in his majority opinion, I wonder if, when the next 2A case comes before the court, they just rule that all gun laws are an infringement and be done with it, once and for all. A bridge too far, for sure, but I think there is an NFA-related case headed their way that would provide that opportunity. Yet, we would still see the same refusal to comply, and I still don't know how it could be enforced.

At the end of the day, it appears that we are headed toward lawlessness more and more every day.

Click to expand...

Oh under different leadership it would be quite possible. Reconstruction provides a template for how that is done, as do some of the actions of the civil rights era, such as escorting kids into schools. Obviously the current leadership has no intention of enforcing that decision, but if a newer and stronger administration were to come to power it would be possible to force the state to comply.

AlexanderA said:

I'd like to see true compromises, where we get something in exchange for giving up something.

Click to expand...

So which part of "shall not be infringed" are you willing to give up?
There can be no compromise on this subject.