Biden Is Cracking Down On Guns Again With AR-15 Pistol Ban, And He’s Using Heller To Do It

Using Heller? Heller might not be the purest pro-2A case but I don't think this is going to work like Biden thinks........




.....assuming our side plays it smart (which is an open question ).

Tommygunn said:

Using Heller? .....assuming our side plays it smart (which is an open question ).

Click to expand...

Our side capitulates and compromises because we, for some reason, refuse to admit the nature and scope of the threat to the Constitution in general and the 2A in particular. Joe McCarthy was right. Many sitting elected officials are domestic enemies.

Trust me. This is way over Biden's head.

Tommygunn said:

Using Heller? Heller might not be the purest pro-2A case but I don't think this is going to work like Biden thinks........




.....assuming our side plays it smart (which is an open question ).

Click to expand...

First wrong assumption is that Biden is capable of thinking - not going political but he has dementia and can't tie his own shoes - anything related to him about any issue is from his handlers so pull back the curtain and see who is pulling the strings. And if anyone thinks this is going anywhere, folks will not comply

What a tool, or fool, or ? My heart breaks thinking about what Soros, Blomberg et al are bringing to our country.

George P said:

First wrong assumption is that Biden is capable of thinking - not going political but he has dementia and can't tie his own shoes - anything related to him about any issue is from his handlers so pull back the curtain and see who is pulling the strings. And if anyone thinks this is going anywhere, folks will not comply

Click to expand...

Certainly Biden is a puppet ..... but he is still President, and his desk is where the "buck stops."

I've been saying ever since the Heller case came out that it was not the pro-gun panacea that people thought it was. In fact, I would have been happy if Miller had remained the last pronouncement on guns by the Supreme Court.

frogfurr said:

Trust me. This is way over Biden's head.

Click to expand...

MY head would literally explode if Joe Biden could coherently show me he understands the legal difference between an AR rifle, pistol, or SBR.

Yes, the buck stops with his desk and he will willingly sign any antigun bill Congress manages to ram through, regardless of actual content.

This article is the FIRST I have seen, that links the brace ban proposed rule debacle with a ar15 pistol BAN

COMMENT PERIOD IS OPEN FOLKS!!

Only lawyers and politicians would take something so plainly worded and convolute it to the point that we are now here, blithering on about “points” and, barrel length, and “unusually dangerous” (rolleyes) weapons.

This lunacy has been years in the making. When calls and comments are made, in addition to making specific points, also point out the complete, obvious, idiocy of all of this. Some politicians calling for gutting / getting rid of the ATF seems like a good start.

Getting rid of the ATF might sound good but if they fold those regulations into a different agency and link firearms to say public health we might be in for something nobody wants. Removing the agency does not remove the laws that are on the books I am afraid.

First off it's just a proposal at this point (but in today's world, likely to become set in stone if the folks that believe in this sort of stuff have their way....). Still, at present it's not a done deal. Secondly I believe that our current president essentially does what he's told to do... Wish it weren't so.

Lastly, if I owned this kind of weapon (I don't, and wouldn't...) and the rules/laws changed - I'd comply... Anyone that considers doing otherwise is going down the wrong road for this retired cop... Think long and hard before taking that step since there are other weapons that can accomplish the same result - yours, and others defense when it's all on the line.

FROGO207 said:

Getting rid of the ATF might sound good but if they fold those regulations into a different agency and link firearms to say public health we might be in for something nobody wants. Removing the agency does not remove the laws that are on the books I am afraid.

Click to expand...

They don’t seem to much care about the laws on the books, only goofball interpretations devoted to increasing infringement. Anything that can be done to stymie an oppressive agency like that is good. Sure, another .gov organ may pick up that role, but at least it slows things down.

George P said:

First wrong assumption is that Biden is capable of thinking - not going political but he has dementia and can't tie his own shoes - anything related to him about any issue is from his handlers so pull back the curtain and see who is pulling the strings.

Click to expand...

That is the essence of the problem. The poor devil does not know where the hell he is. I do wish I knew what person(s) were pulling his strings.

I do not care about anyone's political persuasions or what political party you embrace, you just cannot have a guy that is suffering from dementia sitting in that office looking at the nuclear codes.

Don't underestimate Biden. He has it more "together" than you might think. That said, I don't think he's a fanatic antigunner. He's trying to balance the demands of his base with the needs of the larger electorate. Pistol braces might get restricted, but nothing more dramatic than that is going to be done against guns. His priorities are elsewhere.

What we see here is the usual alarmism -- on both sides -- trying to ramp up the money machine.

I just reviewed the parts of the Heller decision that apply to bans. It very clearly points out why SCOTUS rejected the criterion used in Miller and adopted the “a in common use” standard. I read the Federalist article twice - carefully. It is a hypothetical position. Unless I missed a day in my life I know of no SBR ban being proposed. SBR braces are not banned either. The proposal is to make braces subject to the NFA standards. That means applying and purchasing a stamp. While inconvenient and unfair it is not a ban. I try to not overreact to hypotheticals written be the left or the right. I prefer what is to what might be.

And two final thoughts: Biden has no power to ban any gun. Nor is he a dementia-riddled puppet. If he were, he would not be dangerous.

The Miller standard is "in common use by the military." Under Miller, machine guns would be covered by the 2nd Amendment, whereas under Heller, they are not. If Miller was still good law, we could not have the Hughes Amendment. And "assault weapons bans" would not be an issue.

1942bull said:

I just reviewed the parts of the Heller decision that apply to bans. It very clearly points out why SCOTUS rejected the criterion used in Miller and adopted the “a in common use” standard. I read the Federalist article twice - carefully. It is a hypothetical position. Unless I missed a day in my life I know of no SBR ban being proposed. SBR braces are not banned either. The proposal is to make subject subject to the NFA standards. That means applying and purchasing a stamp. While inconvenient and unfair it is not a ban. I try to not overreact to hypotheticals written be the left or the right. I prefer what is to what might be.

And two final thoughts: Biden has no power to ban any gun. Nor is he a dementia-riddled puppet. If he were, he would not be dangerous.

Click to expand...

It is a “ban” if one cannot afford the time or money to comply. I believe it was MLK that said “a right delayed is a right denied”.

I’m sure if there was a tax and a waiting period applied to say, the right to vote, it would be called, appropriately, a Poll Tax, which I believe is frowned upon? I could be off base.

I don’t know why people are ok with that applying to firearms though.

AlexanderA said:

The Miller standard is "in common use by the military." Under Miller, machine guns would be covered by the 2nd Amendment, whereas under Heller, they are not. If Miller was still good law, we could not have the Hughes Amendment. And "assault weapons bans" would not be an issue.

Click to expand...

Perfect! How do people not see the irony in this?

AlexanderA said:

Don't underestimate Biden. He has it more "together" than you might think. That said, I don't think he's a fanatic antigunner. He's trying to balance the demands of his base with the needs of the larger electorate. Pistol braces might get restricted, but nothing more dramatic than that is going to be done against guns. His priorities are elsewhere.

What we see here is the usual alarmism -- on both sides -- trying to ramp up the money machine.

Click to expand...

I DO think he is a "fanatic antigunner." He said in response to a question about gun bans "Bingo; if you have an AR-15 or AK-47, we are coming for them." This puts him in the same class as Eric Swalwell, IMHO. A quarter century ago all on our side "knew" they wanted to take away our guns and were told, "no, you're being paranoid, all we want is some 'common sense' gun laws."

Now, Swalwell and Biden make no bones about it: THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS.
And yes, I realize that what they SAY and what they do may be different. They may not have the public support for confiscations. They may fizz out.... spend their political capital on other things. The Republicans may take the house and Senate in 2022 ( ) or ....whatever.

Some day we going to pass off some "promise" they make toward a gun less society and be blind-sided when they DO pass some incredibly onerous law .... and then what?

Ok...I've pontificated my pontificate . Biden may well be balancing what he wants vs. his base. Maybe. He is one who - - remember - - said all we need is a double barreled shotgun and to fire off a blast into the air when the home invaders bust in.

Dementia besot? Really? Or just d-u-m-b?

In the end does it really make much difference?

kwguy said:

It is a “ban” if one cannot afford the time or money to comply. I believe it was MLK that said “a right delayed is a right denied”.

I’m sure if there was a tax and a waiting period applied to say, the right to vote, it would be called, appropriately, a Poll Tax, which I believe is frowned upon? I could be off base.

I don’t know why people are ok with that applying to firearms though.

Click to expand...

if you are correct, every tax is a ban on something and all NFA items are banned. I think not.

So I'm guessing that SBR's are now GTG since most tier 1 people are using them "commonly"