Last rights

[Shanghai McCoy]

^^^
Again, sad but true...

 

[GEM]

The new laws will continue as counters to ambiguous Scotus decisions. This is an unpopular view but I don't think Scotus did a good job. The use of historical precedent as a rule rather than a positive statement of what the 2nd Amendments, shall not statement means leads to anti folks to mine history for precedents that support them. Mentioning, of course sensitive locales, means that anything will be sensitive unless there are years of litigation.

Saying you can't ban Manhattan - Clarence is genius, until NYS, NJ, CA and others come up with opt in rules that ban almost every business - at that takes out Manhattan.

Mentioning weapons type as in Heller led the lower courts to consisting support weapons bans.

Send cases back down the pipe for reconsideration to antigun courts - ridiculous. They will find ways that they think are in accord with history to support the bad laws. So back to Scotus years latter for more ambiguity.

Under the idea of shall not as the precedent - one could have said that:

1. No locale can be banned unless there is a highly technical risk from the firearm - such as the MRI room or in an airplane, chemical plant, the court room - not because you think the carrier will go beserk in the library or mosque, church or synagogue.

2. No semi automatic weapon of 50 caliber or less or any configuration or ability to carry any amount of rounds can be banned. No magazine or ammo carrying device of any capacity can be banned. Nor can other weapons be banned for capacity issues (shotguns, ones with integral mags, etc.). Does this leave full autos out - yep but that could be dealt with on a latter day.

3. No law abiding adult citizen can be forbidden from carrying a firearm after passing a criminal background check or check for adjudicated mental health issue.

That's the way the way to do it, rather than their usual ambiguous blather - which many will praise. Did Heller stop one state AWB - NO. Did it make getting a pistol permit easier in NY - NO. That's why Bruen was filed. It was clear that the CCIA was planned before Bruen's decision to strike back if Bruen was gun positive. That the filers of the suit didn't see this coming or Clarence didn't see this coming - well, draw your own conclusions. Because Bruen might help someone in another state doesn't mean that NYS is truly screwed for years to come. Whoopee - some folks now can get permits without a reason clause and guess what, the permit is pragmatically useless.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

That's the way the way to do it, rather than their usual ambiguous blather...

We're on the same page. I'm hoping that all of this defiance will push the Supreme Court into a power struggle on the next case, and they'll come back and say right out, "no more gun laws, no more infringements; the 2nd amendment is absolute." That's the only way to put this to rest. Of course I know that won't happen, but...whatever.

 

[General Geoff]

We're on the same page. I'm hoping that all of this defiance will push the Supreme Court into a power struggle on the next case, and they'll come back and say right out, "no more gun laws, no more infringements; the 2nd amendment is absolute." That's the only way to put this to rest. Of course I know that won't happen, but...whatever.

Be careful what you wish for. If SCOTUS effectively invalidates every gun control law on the books, that could very well end up with enough public and congressional support to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely.

We 2A absolutists are a pretty small minority of the population. We can only push our cause so far before the whole ship capsizes.

I think removal of silencers, SBRs and SBSs from the NFA is an attainable goal, and hopefully a repeal of the Hughes amendment machine gun ban. Outside that, status quo in most states i.e. no mag capacity limits or silly cosmetic feature bans should be nationwide policy.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Be careful what you wish for. If SCOTUS effectively invalidates every gun control law on the books, that could very well end up with enough public and congressional support to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely.

We 2A absolutists are a pretty small minority of the population. We can only push our cause so far before the whole ship capsizes.

I think removal of silencers, SBRs and SBSs from the NFA is an attainable goal, and hopefully a repeal of the Hughes amendment machine gun ban. Outside that, status quo in most states i.e. no mag capacity limits or silly cosmetic feature bans should be nationwide policy.

You raise a good point. And I'm not truly a 2A absolutists. I just feel as though it will take something incredibly dramatic on the part of the court to finally put a stop to this. Regarding a possible, theoretical repeal of the 2nd amendment, don't forget the people have a say in that as well. Once it gets past a super-majority in both houses, it has to win ratification by 2/3 of the states' (so, 34) legislatures. With 25 states now allowing constitutional carry, I think the moment for that has passed irrevocably.

 

[GEM]

I was going to make the same good point. What I suggested is not out of line with some current state laws and the forgotten proposed SAGA act (which the GOP and Mitch never let see the light of day) except for the private property bans not being allowed anymore except for technical reasons. It is a long debate whether a business open to the public has property rights that trump the right of self-defense. I doubt Scotus would go along with my idea as (how to be circumspect) some of them are OK with discrimination on other grounds that peak their personal prejudices.

Anyway, if you want to go tin foil hat - the conservative Politicianworld doesn't want a strong solution for gun rights as it would eliminate them as a fund raising, vote getting issue. Without gun control challenges, the NRA would be reduce to three duck hunters and 4 bullseye guys (yes, they do training - but that's not their major game now). Other advocacy groups might be happy to go away as they believe in the cause rather than the bucks (the paper kind).

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Anyway, if you want to go tin foil hat - the conservative Politicianworld doesn't want a strong solution for gun rights as it would eliminate them as a fund raising, vote getting issue. Without gun control challenges, the NRA would be reduce to three duck hunters and 4 bullseye guys (yes, they do training - but that's not their major game now). Other advocacy groups might be happy to go away as they believe in the cause rather than the bucks (the paper kind).

I've been saying that for a few decades now.

 

[GEM]

You got it, brother. If the GOP gets in again, expect nothing on gun rights legislatively. Sorry to be political, mods.

 

[Poper]

So what would you purchase with your 1 last month of constitutional rights before they are taken away from you?

Pre-paid legal services.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

deleted