Billmanweh
Member
I'm kind of curious what you have in mind
Seriously: Is it time to start USING the Second Amendment?
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
I'm kind of curious what you have in mind
RealGun
Member
A flurry of legitimate militia activity would raise the profile considerably. A few thousand keyboard commandos is not going to do it. Those militias would need to focus more on having good leaders, writers, and lawyers than on tatoos and macho photographs. Right now the only real soldiers are lobbyists, all discredited as that pesky "NRA", undeserved credit in many cases and increasingly becoming a pejorative to the liberals.
In order to wage a cold war, formidable force must be met with formidable force.
A sympatico connection must exist with the general population, or any such movement would be easily demonized. If not disavowed by 2A friendly Congressional representatives, such a movement would be on the right track.
Ryder
Member
Are they not individual rights? Should we not exercise them as individuals? I don't understand all this "we" and "us" talk. If you're free you're free. If you're not, you're not. This comes from within.
"When do we start?" :banghead:
Here's a document written before the civil war which I believe does a beautiful job of describing the spirit of freedom in just one man. It is not a long read.
Civil Disobedience - Thoreau
"When do we start?" :banghead:
Here's a document written before the civil war which I believe does a beautiful job of describing the spirit of freedom in just one man. It is not a long read.
Civil Disobedience - Thoreau
ChiefPilot
Member
Sigh. This discussion comes up now and again but until recently I never really formed an opinion or even thought much about it. However, with the .50cal ban, I've seen this topic on a couple of sites and have had a chance to think about it a bit. I'm not pushing this on anyone, these are my thoughts and mine alone - if you agree with them, great. If not, well, that's fine by me as well. Anyway, they are a bit long winded, so hit the bathroom and grab some popcorn before reading further 
.
In Minnesota, there are four requirements that must be met in order for the use of deadly force to be justified:
1) Unwilling participant,
2) Unable to retreat,
3) Lesser force unavailable/ineffective,
4) Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm of yourself or bystander.
These requirements are emphasized at self defence courses, carry permit classes, and elsewhere. They are in line with my personal convictions and religious beliefs also, and I agree with them.
When it comes to rebellion, I think I would see if those same four requirements. I'm looking at this from the "cold dead hands" point of view i.e. I am not willing to give up my .50cal rifle (I don't actually have one, but bear with me). Based on that, let's apply it to the .50cal ban in California.
1) Unwilling participant: Pass.
Obviously, .50cal owners didn't do anything to encourage the state government to ban their weapons and were in fact quite vocal in their opposition. This was not a fight they picked, and without any evidence of a .50cal being used in a crime or terrorist attack, the .50cal owners are clearly the sole victims of this crime. The ban easily meets this criteria for use of deadly force.
2) Unable to retreat: Fail.
Although a tough call, my personal belief is that the ban fails to meet this criteria simply because a .50cal owner can move to any number of states where no such ban exists. I can understand the reluctancy to move, but given the choice between using deadly force and simply moving, I would personally have to go with moving.
Note that if this were a nationwide ban, this would be different in my opinion because I am an American. I don't feel any particular patriotism or pride in my state compared to my country.
3) Lesser force unavailable/inneffective: Fail.
The soap box and ballot box, etc. have proven ineffective, but what about the jury box? Has this been run through the court system? Don't register the weapon, don't turn it in, but do store it out of state (and out of the state governments reach) until the court system has had a crack at it. If that fails, then, and only then, can the ammo box be considered.
4) Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm of yourself/bystander: Fail.
Unless you have a tinfoil hat, I don't think you can effectively argue that this ban by itself will result in death or great bodily harm to anyone. Perhaps if this was a far-reaching nationwide ban (AWB, where an AWB is anything other than a .22 single shot or a 20 gauge side by side), then I would rethink this because of the whole registration->confiscation->exploitation->extermination chain. Such a ban would make me concerned for my safety and that of my family at the hands of a oppresive government. The .50cal ban is no such thing, however wrong it may be.
Using these four criteria, the .50cal ban only meets one of my four listed requirements. Clearly, for me, "using the 2nd amendment" in this case is out of the question. There are too many other options available, such as fighting it in court or simply moving to another state. They might not be good options, but I'm not about to abandon my beliefs simply because I don't like the options available to me.
.In Minnesota, there are four requirements that must be met in order for the use of deadly force to be justified:
1) Unwilling participant,
2) Unable to retreat,
3) Lesser force unavailable/ineffective,
4) Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm of yourself or bystander.
These requirements are emphasized at self defence courses, carry permit classes, and elsewhere. They are in line with my personal convictions and religious beliefs also, and I agree with them.
When it comes to rebellion, I think I would see if those same four requirements. I'm looking at this from the "cold dead hands" point of view i.e. I am not willing to give up my .50cal rifle (I don't actually have one, but bear with me). Based on that, let's apply it to the .50cal ban in California.
1) Unwilling participant: Pass.
Obviously, .50cal owners didn't do anything to encourage the state government to ban their weapons and were in fact quite vocal in their opposition. This was not a fight they picked, and without any evidence of a .50cal being used in a crime or terrorist attack, the .50cal owners are clearly the sole victims of this crime. The ban easily meets this criteria for use of deadly force.
2) Unable to retreat: Fail.
Although a tough call, my personal belief is that the ban fails to meet this criteria simply because a .50cal owner can move to any number of states where no such ban exists. I can understand the reluctancy to move, but given the choice between using deadly force and simply moving, I would personally have to go with moving.
Note that if this were a nationwide ban, this would be different in my opinion because I am an American. I don't feel any particular patriotism or pride in my state compared to my country.
3) Lesser force unavailable/inneffective: Fail.
The soap box and ballot box, etc. have proven ineffective, but what about the jury box? Has this been run through the court system? Don't register the weapon, don't turn it in, but do store it out of state (and out of the state governments reach) until the court system has had a crack at it. If that fails, then, and only then, can the ammo box be considered.
4) Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm of yourself/bystander: Fail.
Unless you have a tinfoil hat, I don't think you can effectively argue that this ban by itself will result in death or great bodily harm to anyone. Perhaps if this was a far-reaching nationwide ban (AWB, where an AWB is anything other than a .22 single shot or a 20 gauge side by side), then I would rethink this because of the whole registration->confiscation->exploitation->extermination chain. Such a ban would make me concerned for my safety and that of my family at the hands of a oppresive government. The .50cal ban is no such thing, however wrong it may be.
Using these four criteria, the .50cal ban only meets one of my four listed requirements. Clearly, for me, "using the 2nd amendment" in this case is out of the question. There are too many other options available, such as fighting it in court or simply moving to another state. They might not be good options, but I'm not about to abandon my beliefs simply because I don't like the options available to me.
NoHarmNoFAL
Member
We get the .GOV that we deserve. Face it we are in the minority when it comes to the populace. Jane Suburbanite does not think that anyone should have a gun they are bad. All her friends at the coffee shop most likely think so also. You are about to find out in Nov. just how valued the "Gun Vote" will be in the following elections. If GWB looses and any seats are lost in the House/Senate the gun owners are screwed because believe it or not GWB put his fate in our hands and if we let them down they will not come back the this well for votes again. When the fear of the "Gun Vote" is gone you are powerless. Then who knows what then.
Tip: Don't look at the beach for the reef look just in front of the bow. (Pay attention to what is about to happen in the next few weeks not 10 years from now.)
Tip: Don't look at the beach for the reef look just in front of the bow. (Pay attention to what is about to happen in the next few weeks not 10 years from now.)
CZ52GUY
Member
DrJones
I feel your pain...and I'm not trying to be cute about my response.
I think your original post contains some of the answers to your frustration, not all, but some.
On 9/13/2004, the AWB died, as it should have, objective evidence that the anti's are not an all-powerful force that cannot be defeated. I think all the posturing and hysterical rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality is that it died because there was not sufficient political will to sustain it. Sure, there are those that might tell a pollster they were for it, but they wouldn't tell a politician that their voting for him/her was contingent on their position on AWB. To get to the point, it was our side that indicated to pol's that there would be consequences, ballot box consequences. People listened, including those who publicly came out in support of the extension of AWB, but did little to put their words into actions.
Sadly, in California and other oppressive states there have been no consequences to the blatant abuses of rights which our Constitution guarantees. I think for many well meaning members of this thread who advocate moderation of tone and "perspective" on threats to our liberities, they should really walk a mile in your shoes first.
This thread contains representative evidence of the most successful tactic of the anti's, divide and conquer. Sure they lost a battle with the AWB, but they won another engagement in California. This is indeed a great country, but for those living in California and other oppressive states, they do not share in the liberties that many of us take for granted.
Is it time to use the 2nd? I've heard it said that if you have to ask, then not yet. So I'd discourage the cartridge box option.
I recommend continued use of the ballot box.
I recommend consideration of the moving box. To your point, gun owners represent the kind of citizens that make good neighbors, tax payers and citizens. If there was a mass exodus of gun owners from oppressive states to gun friendly states, what would be left behind? Soccer Mom's? Gang bangers? The "beautiful people"? Would they be enough to sustain their contribution to the GDP?
What about the rest of us? Are we willing to consider economic sanctions against California and other Constitution flouting states? How, you ask? At the idiot box maybe (stop tuning in to the propoganda - ratings=revenue). At the movie theater (stop funding the VPC, the Brady Bunch, and others). At the grocery store, at the on-line retailer, etc., etc., etc.
Is it time to act, absolutely! But we need to stop denying the gravity of the problem and stand together. We need to be willing to sacrifice the "entertaining" or "convenient" for the sake of something that really matters, freedom. We need to make a difference with our actions. We need to make sure there are consequences and that the immunity from accountability stops. We need to realize that when others are denied freedoms we enjoy, that we are at risk also.
The AWB sunset is objective evidence that our enemies are not all powerful. But that so many even in this thread are willing to cast a blind eye to the plight of THR members in oppressive states, and to dismiss the gravity of the situation we are in...it proves the anti's are winning the war.
Can they be defeated? Sure, but only if we are willing to fight to win. If we have to exercise the 2nd, I believe that it will be because we have already lost. I'm not willing to concede that.
I'm voting with my wallet.
I turned off the idiot box.
I don't knowingly provide funding to the enemies of liberty because they are pleasing to look at.
I keep fighting at the ballot box.
I'd encourage you to do the same.
I do feel your pain.
I don't deny the gravity of your circumstances.
I am also outraged.
The tactic you hypothetically put forward is an unintended admission of defeat. Don't give up!!
Stay safe,
CZ52'
I feel your pain...and I'm not trying to be cute about my response.
I think your original post contains some of the answers to your frustration, not all, but some.
On 9/13/2004, the AWB died, as it should have, objective evidence that the anti's are not an all-powerful force that cannot be defeated. I think all the posturing and hysterical rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality is that it died because there was not sufficient political will to sustain it. Sure, there are those that might tell a pollster they were for it, but they wouldn't tell a politician that their voting for him/her was contingent on their position on AWB. To get to the point, it was our side that indicated to pol's that there would be consequences, ballot box consequences. People listened, including those who publicly came out in support of the extension of AWB, but did little to put their words into actions.
Sadly, in California and other oppressive states there have been no consequences to the blatant abuses of rights which our Constitution guarantees. I think for many well meaning members of this thread who advocate moderation of tone and "perspective" on threats to our liberities, they should really walk a mile in your shoes first.
This thread contains representative evidence of the most successful tactic of the anti's, divide and conquer. Sure they lost a battle with the AWB, but they won another engagement in California. This is indeed a great country, but for those living in California and other oppressive states, they do not share in the liberties that many of us take for granted.
Is it time to use the 2nd? I've heard it said that if you have to ask, then not yet. So I'd discourage the cartridge box option.
I recommend continued use of the ballot box.
I recommend consideration of the moving box. To your point, gun owners represent the kind of citizens that make good neighbors, tax payers and citizens. If there was a mass exodus of gun owners from oppressive states to gun friendly states, what would be left behind? Soccer Mom's? Gang bangers? The "beautiful people"? Would they be enough to sustain their contribution to the GDP?
What about the rest of us? Are we willing to consider economic sanctions against California and other Constitution flouting states? How, you ask? At the idiot box maybe (stop tuning in to the propoganda - ratings=revenue). At the movie theater (stop funding the VPC, the Brady Bunch, and others). At the grocery store, at the on-line retailer, etc., etc., etc.
Is it time to act, absolutely! But we need to stop denying the gravity of the problem and stand together. We need to be willing to sacrifice the "entertaining" or "convenient" for the sake of something that really matters, freedom. We need to make a difference with our actions. We need to make sure there are consequences and that the immunity from accountability stops. We need to realize that when others are denied freedoms we enjoy, that we are at risk also.
The AWB sunset is objective evidence that our enemies are not all powerful. But that so many even in this thread are willing to cast a blind eye to the plight of THR members in oppressive states, and to dismiss the gravity of the situation we are in...it proves the anti's are winning the war.
Can they be defeated? Sure, but only if we are willing to fight to win. If we have to exercise the 2nd, I believe that it will be because we have already lost. I'm not willing to concede that.
I'm voting with my wallet.
I turned off the idiot box.
I don't knowingly provide funding to the enemies of liberty because they are pleasing to look at.
I keep fighting at the ballot box.
I'd encourage you to do the same.
I do feel your pain.
I don't deny the gravity of your circumstances.
I am also outraged.
The tactic you hypothetically put forward is an unintended admission of defeat. Don't give up!!
Stay safe,
CZ52'
Gordon Fink
Member
I was thinking that a muzzleloader would be satisfyingly ironic.
But don’t worry. The financial cost of living in California will probably force me to employ the moving box long before unconstitutional legislation forces me to employ the cartridge box.
~G. Fink
Gordon Fink
Member
I was thinking that a muzzleloader would be satisfyingly ironic.
But don’t worry. The financial cost of living in California will probably force me to employ the moving box long before unconstitutional legislation forces me to employ the cartridge box.
~G. Fink
Some guy once wrote a novel that kinda dealt with this issue...
I agree with ctdonath that IF it ever happens, it will be unforeseen circumstances that precipitate things, just as WWI started because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
That said, I am optimistic. Here's why:
A veritable sea change across the country in CCW, and it's continuing.
More and more people, especially women, focused on defensive use of guns and not recreation. You don't see HCI and VPC bleating about "Saturday Night Specials" any more. Why? It wouldn't work, with so many CCW states and permit holders.
Grassroots gun groups everywhere.
An increasingly wised-up electorate.
Alternative news sources on the Internet.
Instant information dissemination.
The emergence of serious legal study on 2nd A cases.
Folks, our rights of all types have always been under assault from those who would chill our freedoms. There were no good old days. Don't whine, spit on your hands and get in the fight.
JR
I agree with ctdonath that IF it ever happens, it will be unforeseen circumstances that precipitate things, just as WWI started because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
That said, I am optimistic. Here's why:
A veritable sea change across the country in CCW, and it's continuing.
More and more people, especially women, focused on defensive use of guns and not recreation. You don't see HCI and VPC bleating about "Saturday Night Specials" any more. Why? It wouldn't work, with so many CCW states and permit holders.
Grassroots gun groups everywhere.
An increasingly wised-up electorate.
Alternative news sources on the Internet.
Instant information dissemination.
The emergence of serious legal study on 2nd A cases.
Folks, our rights of all types have always been under assault from those who would chill our freedoms. There were no good old days. Don't whine, spit on your hands and get in the fight.
JR
John Ross wrote:
Those 3 items have been very important in stemming the incoming tide of more gun control, and in some cases have pushed back the tide, eg.; sunsetting of the AWB, and more states adopting right to carry laws.
We still have many battles to fight. Some will be lost, some will be won. We need to continue to support gun rights groups, gun rights friendly politicians. Most importantly, we need to educate our friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members on the importance of our rights and how the anti gun folks lie to advance their agenda. If you are a trustworthy person, people who know you will put much more stock in your statements vs. the talking heads such as Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.
We have to get our message out at the grass roots level as well as at the local, state and national level. That is certainly a big challenge, but worthy of the endeavor. Otherwise, we will soon find ourselves with little choice but to take back our rights. I think we are not there yet. We have been moving in that direction, and the ban on .50's in California is certainly one step in that direction. We have taken a few steps back up the slope with more right to carry states and the sunset of the AWB. We need to make more steps back up the slope while holding fast against going any further down.
It's hard when we have a soft country, many of whom don't understand freedom in the first place, but take it for granted. In many peoples' minds, there is no reason to own firearms, that is what the cops and military are for. We need to reverse this logic, somehow. I don't know how, other than to try and talk to people you know who feel this way. Get them to trust you and it will be harder for the Sarah Bradys and Chuck Schumers of the world to poison their minds.
Those 3 items have been very important in stemming the incoming tide of more gun control, and in some cases have pushed back the tide, eg.; sunsetting of the AWB, and more states adopting right to carry laws.
We still have many battles to fight. Some will be lost, some will be won. We need to continue to support gun rights groups, gun rights friendly politicians. Most importantly, we need to educate our friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members on the importance of our rights and how the anti gun folks lie to advance their agenda. If you are a trustworthy person, people who know you will put much more stock in your statements vs. the talking heads such as Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.
We have to get our message out at the grass roots level as well as at the local, state and national level. That is certainly a big challenge, but worthy of the endeavor. Otherwise, we will soon find ourselves with little choice but to take back our rights. I think we are not there yet. We have been moving in that direction, and the ban on .50's in California is certainly one step in that direction. We have taken a few steps back up the slope with more right to carry states and the sunset of the AWB. We need to make more steps back up the slope while holding fast against going any further down.
It's hard when we have a soft country, many of whom don't understand freedom in the first place, but take it for granted. In many peoples' minds, there is no reason to own firearms, that is what the cops and military are for. We need to reverse this logic, somehow. I don't know how, other than to try and talk to people you know who feel this way. Get them to trust you and it will be harder for the Sarah Bradys and Chuck Schumers of the world to poison their minds.
RealGun
Member
That would be nice, but what we really need is a decent Supreme Court. That may be a chicken or egg question, but it won't be popular opinion that gets our rights affirmed. Civil rights rulings are not popular except among those directly benefiting in the short term and particularly attuned to the issue.
ctdonath
Member
Billmanweh -
What I have in mind is a coordinated, thorough, deliberate, wide-scale legal action.
We've been waiting around for someone to bring The Case to court, and get all hopefull when some questionable character brings up the 2nd Amendment as a Hail Mary ploy. That is not a good way to restore rights.
What we need is for several (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) upstanding citizens to go to court saying "I am legally part of the militia, and I demand my right to keep and bear currently-banned militia arms." It may take a series of cases, both in breadth (enough people filing separate cases that differing judgements force the issue to SCOTUS) and in depth (systematically peel away the layers of oppressive laws).
First step is overturning 922(o) - the machinegun ban. (Yes, grandfathered machineguns are technically legal. The 10x overpricing and limited & aging supply makes that point moot.) Someone recently posted a case (anyone got that link?) which declares NFA '34 null-and-void due to 922(o) (the '86 machinegun ban, which effectively terminated NFA as a tax-collection measure). We need to make a court face the multiple rulings stating NFA was Constitutional only because it collected taxes and was emphatically not a ban (courts, IIRC SCOTUS included, stated clearly that NFA as a prohibition measure was unacceptable and stood only on tax grounds), and hence 922(o) is unconstitutional precisely because it is a ban.
Various state machinegun bans, and the CA .50BMG ban, could then be overturned for similar reasons: flat-out gun bans (by type) are unconstitutional. This case would insist on incorporating RKBA to the states.
At the same time, interstate recognition of CCW must be fought for, with cases separately insisting on every combination of issuing-state and recognizing-state, all based on "full faith and credit".
And so on.
The core point is step-by-step, deliberate, pervasive court actions. A major factor is PERVASIVE: lots of people must file these cases simultaniously, to force multiple conflicting decisions which must be taken and resolved by higher courts. Someone should create a do-it-yourself guide to filing the cases: not everyone can be a lawyer, but one lawyer can give all the info needed to everyone who wants to go it alone (to avoid the trap of risking the failure of a single hugely-expensive case).
We need a coordinated center to work out which case when, and disseminate the info needed for hundreds of individuals to file similar/identical cases.
We've been hoping that Stewart or Emerson or other criminal cases to save us in one fell swoop. Wrong approach. We need a large-scale movement in court. As I see it, step 1 is 100 people simultaniously filing "I want my M4" cases.
What I have in mind is a coordinated, thorough, deliberate, wide-scale legal action.
We've been waiting around for someone to bring The Case to court, and get all hopefull when some questionable character brings up the 2nd Amendment as a Hail Mary ploy. That is not a good way to restore rights.
What we need is for several (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) upstanding citizens to go to court saying "I am legally part of the militia, and I demand my right to keep and bear currently-banned militia arms." It may take a series of cases, both in breadth (enough people filing separate cases that differing judgements force the issue to SCOTUS) and in depth (systematically peel away the layers of oppressive laws).
First step is overturning 922(o) - the machinegun ban. (Yes, grandfathered machineguns are technically legal. The 10x overpricing and limited & aging supply makes that point moot.) Someone recently posted a case (anyone got that link?) which declares NFA '34 null-and-void due to 922(o) (the '86 machinegun ban, which effectively terminated NFA as a tax-collection measure). We need to make a court face the multiple rulings stating NFA was Constitutional only because it collected taxes and was emphatically not a ban (courts, IIRC SCOTUS included, stated clearly that NFA as a prohibition measure was unacceptable and stood only on tax grounds), and hence 922(o) is unconstitutional precisely because it is a ban.
Various state machinegun bans, and the CA .50BMG ban, could then be overturned for similar reasons: flat-out gun bans (by type) are unconstitutional. This case would insist on incorporating RKBA to the states.
At the same time, interstate recognition of CCW must be fought for, with cases separately insisting on every combination of issuing-state and recognizing-state, all based on "full faith and credit".
And so on.
The core point is step-by-step, deliberate, pervasive court actions. A major factor is PERVASIVE: lots of people must file these cases simultaniously, to force multiple conflicting decisions which must be taken and resolved by higher courts. Someone should create a do-it-yourself guide to filing the cases: not everyone can be a lawyer, but one lawyer can give all the info needed to everyone who wants to go it alone (to avoid the trap of risking the failure of a single hugely-expensive case).
We need a coordinated center to work out which case when, and disseminate the info needed for hundreds of individuals to file similar/identical cases.
We've been hoping that Stewart or Emerson or other criminal cases to save us in one fell swoop. Wrong approach. We need a large-scale movement in court. As I see it, step 1 is 100 people simultaniously filing "I want my M4" cases.
CZ52GUY
Member
re: Court Action
I'm pessimistic re: the courts
The courts are the ones who uphold obvious infringements and several have ruled that the 2nd is not an individual right. I'm not convinced that SCOTUS (as currently staffed) would rule differently than the 9th.
In the end, the court tactic depends on 5 individuals siding with us (who could very easily rule differently at some later date).
I'm intrigued by THE PLEDGE action in the House. If it makes it through the Senate and is signed, 5 individuals cannot reverse it, they have no standing. 270 individuals (218 Rep's, 51 Senators, and a sitting President) would have to concur to override it.
I wonder out loud if the right legislation (or series of bills) where Congress invokes it's right to exclude SCOTUS review might work better?
The 9th has proven to be reliably anti. SCOTUS has proven to be reliably unreliable.
I'd start with a simple..."the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution shall be interpreted as an individual right of ALL citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms for their self-defense, hunting, and recreational purposes, and no court within these United States may rule otherwise"...or some such language that someone far more capable than I could craft...exclusions for felons and consideration of those who are of diminished mental capacity would need to be ironed out (do we police ourselves or do we allow for legislative restrictions on the truly impaired?).
Building on that foundation, additional laws could be crafted which would aggressively seek to restore the original intent of the 2nd. Things like national shall issue concealed carry come to mind, as well as pre-emptive legislation forbidding federal, state, and local versions of AWB. The predatory lawsuit protection that the AWB/gunshow amendments "poison pilled" would also be a priority.
No strategy is perfect, but I concur that many non-violent remedies should be pursued aggressively before desperate measures are considered.
Safe shooting,
CZ52'
I'm pessimistic re: the courts
The courts are the ones who uphold obvious infringements and several have ruled that the 2nd is not an individual right. I'm not convinced that SCOTUS (as currently staffed) would rule differently than the 9th.
In the end, the court tactic depends on 5 individuals siding with us (who could very easily rule differently at some later date).
I'm intrigued by THE PLEDGE action in the House. If it makes it through the Senate and is signed, 5 individuals cannot reverse it, they have no standing. 270 individuals (218 Rep's, 51 Senators, and a sitting President) would have to concur to override it.
I wonder out loud if the right legislation (or series of bills) where Congress invokes it's right to exclude SCOTUS review might work better?
The 9th has proven to be reliably anti. SCOTUS has proven to be reliably unreliable.
I'd start with a simple..."the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution shall be interpreted as an individual right of ALL citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms for their self-defense, hunting, and recreational purposes, and no court within these United States may rule otherwise"...or some such language that someone far more capable than I could craft...exclusions for felons and consideration of those who are of diminished mental capacity would need to be ironed out (do we police ourselves or do we allow for legislative restrictions on the truly impaired?).
Building on that foundation, additional laws could be crafted which would aggressively seek to restore the original intent of the 2nd. Things like national shall issue concealed carry come to mind, as well as pre-emptive legislation forbidding federal, state, and local versions of AWB. The predatory lawsuit protection that the AWB/gunshow amendments "poison pilled" would also be a priority.
No strategy is perfect, but I concur that many non-violent remedies should be pursued aggressively before desperate measures are considered.
Safe shooting,
CZ52'
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
Gun control can be viewed as a house of cards or pyramid. Careful analysis must be done to take legal arguments away in the right progression.
I don't like these workarounds to judicial impeachment or legitimate constitutional amendments. If the Supreme Court is going to refuse to hear the case without comment, what's the point except to raise the profile of how outrageous and arrogant they have become or perhaps always were? Taking away their lifetime, untouchable status may be the place to start. I would at least make it mandatory for them to provide meaningful comment when refusing to hear a case.
If Congress has the power to dissolve and reformulate a Court, they should do it at least once to make the point. When they have to start passing laws to emasculate a Court, that's a workaround.
artherd
member
I think they'll call 'em 'sniper rifles' like they did to .50BMG guns in CA...
Right and I almost used that term in my post above.
But it still wouldn't change the fact that it is a rifle that millions of Americans use to hunt every year.
We have a problem rallying hunters to our cause, if they aren't completely against us.
I think THAT would help.
RealGun
Member
Ted Kennedy may help you out, were he to succeed in banning the body-armor-piercing ammo for those rifles. All you really have to do is publicize that doing that is what he proposes.
- Status
