Question re: Potential ban

[Ergosphere]

And if Senator Obama takes the West, he will listen to Governors like Schweitzer and Richardson and Napolitano before he steps on that third rail.

Napolitano wrote the platform which includes reinstating the AWB...

 

[MCMXI]

Has anyone estimated (or any sources for) the contribution to the US economy in terms of revenue from firearms, ammunition, accessories, shooting clubs, ranges, repairs, upgrades, training, etc? How many jobs would be lost following a significant decline in the sale of firearms, ammunition, accessories etc as a result of partial or outright bans?

I'm certainly not an economist, but in these tough economic times, you'd think that the last thing anyone would want is to take away jobs or hinder anything that increases the GDP!!

 

[Colonel]

By that "reasoning," why buy any gun at all, if someday they might ban it?

Better safe than sorry -- better submit to sheepdom now, just in case.

 

[Megistopoda]

We just won Heller. 4 Major things will happen in next year or so

1) Heller lawyer is requesting $$$ from DC because it is CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. Does anyone realize how powerful of a precedent that is. Lawyers all over the country will be able to work "pro bono" and stick 6 figure bills to the government on a variety of issues realted to RKBA.

2) In Heller 2 the argument is that a "right can not be taxed". They are requesting the registration in DC be at NO COST to the owner. There is ample precedent. Voting costs states millions yet nobody pays a vote tax anymore. Not everyone votes yet non-voters pay taxes to support the right to vote. Imagine NFA w/ no stamp tax, no CHP fees, no registration fees anywhere. Federal Excise tax on ammo & guns found unconstitutional.

3) Someone will file a suit alleging the 2nd is incorporated. That makes banning a class of weapon in "common use" illegal everywhere both a federal level, and state, local laws too.

4) Lastly someone will seek to extend Heller to the right to BEAR arms (i.e CCW and Open Carry). 70% of crime occurs outside the home. Why should SD be limited to people "lucky" enough to be attack in their home.

Stop worrying (so much), buy guns, support your local pro-gun groups. The fight has been and always will be won at the local level.

Happiness ... I am pleased to read this, and could not have said it better myself. Regarding #3, it's already happened. I presume the NRA cases do this, but I know for a fact that the suit filed against Chicago (the Alan Gura/SAF/IL State Rifle Assn case) seeks to do just exactly that.

Their language:

48. The Second Amendment right is incorporated as against the states and their political subdivisions pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

49. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a privilege and immunity of United States citizenship which, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, states and their political subdivisions may not violate.

50. Handguns, as a class of weapons, are “arms” whose possession by law-abiding adult citizens is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

51. By banning handguns, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprive individuals, including the Plaintiffs, of their right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs are thus damaged in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against continued enforcement and maintenance of Defendants’ unconstitutional customs, policies, and practices.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Federal ban is always possible given the right circumstance, such as a Democrat controlled congress and a anti-gun Democrat in the Oval office. It happened in 1994 under Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress. They passed legislation such as the Brady bill and a prohibition on military style auto-loaders or in the vernacular of the anti's: "assault weapons". They allowed a grandfather clause because of Republican pressure, but next time we not be so fortunate. Any vote that isn't for McCain is a vote that will ensure an Obama win.

Federal ban prior to Heller sure. Federal ban after Heller never going to happen. Before Heller politicians could at least lie to themselves and voters and say it is legal because 2nd means militia and the national guard is the militia.

You, me, the people on THR know that isn't true but majority of Americans didn't or didn't care.

Heller and all the news coverage has changed that. If you took a poll today and asked
"Regardless of your personal beliefs on gun control ; do you believe the 2nd amendment guarantees citizens of US have an individual RIGHT to own a firearm?" [Yes/No/I don't know]

the overwhelming majority would say yes today.
I remember seeing a poll a week or two before Heller which was worded less neutral and it said 57% believe in an individual right.

Since then the SCOTUS and all the media has played the sound bite "2nd = individual right. 2nd = individual right. 2nd = individual right" refrain a lot. Today the number might be 65%-70%.

A federal ban will not happen. SCOTUS may even invervene before it gets passed (it has happened before on other bills) and declare the bill unconstitutional before it even signed into law.

Now is some states where support of rights are lower than national average (CA, NY, IL, MD, etc) the future may be more grim, but Federally there will not be a ban.

If you don't buy weapons based on a fear of a potential future ban then haven't the antis already won. They have pushed a fear based ban w/o a vote in congress.

 

[Megistopoda]

If you took a poll today and asked "Regardless of your personal beliefs on gun control ; do you believe the 2nd amendment guarantees citizens of US have an individual RIGHT to own a firearm?"

I remember seeing a poll a week or two before Heller which was worded less neutral and it said 57% believe in an individual right.

Since then the SCOTUS and all the media has played the sound bite "2nd = individual right. 2nd = individual right. 2nd = individual right" refrain a lot. Today the number might be 65%-70%.

Happiness: Actually, the number being touted BEFORE the Heller ruling was 75% ... 3/4 of Americans believed the 2A protected an individual right to own guns.

I am not sure the Heller decision has terribly much sway with public opinion (though I hope it would). The most important thing it did was to raise the bar for "gun control", and Heller was only the FIRST case. Future cases will raise that bar higher.

I just don't quite comprehend some of the concern I read in this thread ... nearly paranoia depending on how you look at it. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that some people simply can't live without fear. And that's sad. People, enjoy your freedoms, work to protect and enhance them, and quit worrying.

Besides, consider that the second amendment is as much a concept or philosophy as it is a rule of law. Work to keep that concept alive, and passed down the generations. Long as that concept of freedom is alive and well, what do you have to gain by worrying?

 

[MGshaggy]

They allowed a grandfather clause because of Republican pressure, but next time we not be so fortunate

The dems were only able to get it passed after 2-3 votes, and a serious round of arm-twisting with the Congressional Black Caucus (who initially opposed the bill also). There's political reasons it had a sunset provision, but the grandfather clause had absolutely nothing to do with those political reasons. Rather, the grandfather clause was necessarily included to ensure the bill would not be declared unconstitutional on 5th Amendment grounds.