The Govt. is losing support for gun reform

I hope you are right
I feel that its the crest of the wave though.
I get one radio station for my 1.5 hour commute. NPR. I get to hear what the opposition is plotting, so to speak.
This week there is a segment on the effects of gun laws on crime. The conclusion was, and I quote
"There really isn't any evidence to correlate reduced gun violence with stricter gun laws."
NPR at the end of their segment, gave a quiet clear summary, that new gun laws won't make anybody safer, by the numbers.
The next segment was on options for implementing new gun laws despite strong opposition.
It really is a control game that isn't going away. Its not going to be a "reasonable debate" in which numbers and logic will win the argument.
They believe they have the right to "feel safe", but aren't responsible for taking care of their own safety. The only way to "feel" safe if you've been told that "guns kill" is to naturally, get rid of guns. We live in a very emotional time, where "feelings" matter, and logic takes backseat if it leads to hurt feelings, greater personal responsibility, or hard decisions.

I think we're looking at California style bans nationwide, and I hope to God you're right, and I'm wrong.

Hopefully I won't have to choke on these words, but barring another tragedy, I think we will be ok.

Click to expand...

I hope you're right. I'm not going to believe it until I see it though, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised.

There are those that believe the Democrats will secretly promote another mass shooting to further their agenda, but my tin foil hat didn't come in the right size.

Let us say that as we go through the year, economic condition deteriorate to the point where in some places there is civil disorder.

And this happens just after the president’s big mouth (not to mention VP Biden) has caused a massive peak in gun and ammunition sales.

I can see both good and bad.

BHP FAN said:

I think we're looking at California style bans nationwide, and I hope to God you're right, and I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Then what will the gun situation look like in California? They always seem to be the first to "one-up" the rest of the nation as far as control.

Law abiding citizens in California will be reduced to single shot fire arms, and gun crime will skyrocket, and will prove that controlling the populace really works.

Ugh. You are probably right on the money.

The Govt. is losing support for gun reform

Click to expand...

Well, I hope so! They really need to be concentrating on banning those damned ferry boats.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/new-york-ferry-accident/index.html

The "mandate or Presidential order" will quicklly be challenged". I believe that whatever Obama tries, will get knocked down.
He may get a temporary stay of execution and be able to declare some half baked unenforceble law in effect, but it will be declared unconstitutional and certainlly unenforceble in most states.

Click to expand...

If Obuma issues an executive order banning whatever guns and ammo he wants, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to overturn it. There is no way 2/3 of the Senate would vote against him. I assume the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional if they agreed to accept the case. They do not accept all cases appealled to them. And if they accept it, there is no gaurantee they would overturn it. If just one conservative flips, then it is 5-4 liberals.

I wasn't aware the President could enact a law through executive order.

TenDriver said:

I wasn't aware the President could enact a law through executive order.

Click to expand...

It's not a law if it's a "kinetic executive action"

OP - I very much hope you are correct. One thing to note, emotions ALWAYS have a part in this, on both sides. That is just human nature. However, there is a difference between the emotional impact of having someone wanting to take away your rights (that is certainly emotionally jarring), and using reason, logic, and rationality to combat it (us), as opposed to THEIR emotional reaction, which is knee-jerk, and irrational.

Here is an analogy: Person #1 wakes up in a burning house. Emotionally, he is scared and keyed up. That emotion spurs him to think, calmly and rationally. He crawls under the smoke and finds an appropriate exit. Person #2 finds himself in the same situation, but runs around in an emotionally driven panic until he smacks his head into a door jamb, knock himself out, and dies in the fire. The difference is, while person number two is running around yelling cluelessly, everyone else in the house wakes up and does the same thing. Then it's chaos. That's what the anti's do. They spaz out, and cause others to follow them with "emotional momentum." The "leaders" of this anti movement know this, and want to capitalize on it.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional, and Lincoln and the army ignored the supreme court. What about suspending 2a?

Win73 said:

If Obuma issues an executive order banning whatever guns and ammo he wants, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to overturn it. There is no way 2/3 of the Senate would vote against him. I assume the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional if they agreed to accept the case. They do not accept all cases appealled to them. And if they accept it, there is no gaurantee they would overturn it. If just one conservative flips, then it is 5-4 liberals.

Click to expand...

No. Any federal appeals court in the country can strike it down with a simple 3 judge panel, based on previous SCOTUS rulings. If the POTUS writes something that broad it will be easy for any federal court to find lots of previous SC rulings to shred it and slap the WH back to reality.

A narrow, limited EO written within current law that slightly changes interpretation of some grey area, will not be so easy to strike down. That might require Congress or the full SCOTUS.

You think California is bad? In NY, Gov Cuomo in his 'State of the State Address' said this today:

“Forget the extremists — it’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. End the madness now."

Click to expand...

Obama acting unilaterally would pass a poisoned baton to his own party the next time around, and he's a smarter guy than that.


I agree that the facts are starting to out; between Joshua Boston and the factcheck guy, we've had more positive gun video from the mainstream media posted here in the last two days than in the last 3 1/2 weeks combined.

I wouldn't say that I'm optimistic, but I'm less pessimistic, and that's something–considering that I typically think that both parties are out to get us.

Dr. Sandman said:

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional, and Lincoln and the army ignored the supreme court. What about suspending 2a?

Click to expand...

The Constitution gives him that power... during a civil war. It was legal.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Click to expand...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm

I fear a self created national crisis in which Obama "must" declare martial law. Then he can do anything he wants.

I tend to agree with the OP, however, we need to keep the heat on!

Pilot said:

I fear a self created national crisis in which Obama "must" declare martial law. Then he can do anything he wants.

Click to expand...

No. Even if there was "martial law". He is still not a king. Military law is not a crown. Hyperbole is not helping.

Pilot said:

I fear a self created national crisis in which Obama "must" declare martial law. Then he can do anything he wants.

Click to expand...

I fear that this sentiment smacks of extreme paranoia. Obama isn't a guy who just made stuff up in order to take the country to war so he could "avenge" his father being "threatened", by some two bit has been from the middle east. You may not agree with his policies, but despite what certain people would have you believe, the president is not the devil. The devil would be ashamed at being so pathetic in his evil doing.

Pilot said:

Then he can do anything he wants.

Click to expand...

...GAH! then he might "force" us all eligible for cheap health care that includes preventative medicine, so that we can live longer, happier, more productive lives! run for the hills!

I mean really, what are people afraid that "he wants" other than to make guns illegal (which he knows he can't do even if he wanted to)?

You think California is bad? In NY, Gov Cuomo in his 'State of the State Address' said this today:

Quote:
“Forget the extremists — it’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. End the madness now."

Click to expand...

Of course someone needs to remind Cuomo that 2A has nothing to do with hunting and that it's not the "Bill of Needs" but the "Bill of Rights". Then again, Cuomo has never been all the interested in things that tell him what to do.

I still find it amazing that the term "sporting purposes" found it's way into the NFA and hasn't been overturned by SCOTUS. :banghead:

mjw930 said:

I still find it amazing that the term "sporting purposes" found it's way into the NFA and hasn't been overturned by SCOTUS. :banghead:

Click to expand...

me too, but I don't want to be the one tied up in court for the rest of my life trying to sort that one out.

Then what will the gun situation look like in California? They always seem to be the first to "one-up" the rest of the nation as far as control.

Click to expand...

I believe that "honor" will go to the state of New York this go-around. I always though NYC historically was the precursor on gun control, specifically (on nearly everything else, yeah, CA usually clamps down first). Not only does NYC have the history of the Sullivan Act (or whatever it's called), they have two grandstanding frog-mouths jockeying for the Outrageous Cup.

The "mandate or Presidential order" will quicklly be challenged". I believe that whatever Obama tries, will get knocked down.
He may get a temporary stay of execution and be able to declare some half baked unenforceble law in effect, but it will be declared unconstitutional and certainlly unenforceble in most states.

Click to expand...

Obama (or any politician who isn't a crack-pot) hasn't been known to tilt at windmills. When he makes his move, it will be because he has been assured of victory already. I believe his actions are constrained, but not by the Constitution at this point. The man is ready and willing to do anything he believes he can get away with. If he was confident a ban on interstate transfer of primers as hazmat or something wouldn't anger congress or the Court enough to take action against him (possibly in exhange for some other favor), I see no physical law of nature stopping him from issuing an edict to that effect. Congress is probably too schizophrenic at this point to be relied upon for rational governance, but the SCOTUS is still a firewall (they still like to flex their muscles, too, when given the chance).

The real inidication of Obama's motives becomes clear when he gets to choose a new justice. What "pressing issues" will he be grilling them about for that role? If gun control (as opposed to healthcare/finance), we know he is serious about trying something.

me too, but I don't want to be the one tied up in court for the rest of my life trying to sort that one out.

Click to expand...

I can't believe the Brady Bunch doesn't have a case going to get 50BMG (or better yet, 950 JDJ) removed from the Sporting Use exception list; talk about a case that has more going for it than suing Armslist . Perhaps they're smarter than I think, and they know the SCOTUS would throw out the whole damn law

TCB