What's To Stop Them?

[Cyborg]

Where I grew up when somebody tried to make someone do something they didn't want to do they generally replied with 2 words "Make me!". That or with the two words summarized by the single-digit salute. My question is on the order of an absolutely WORST worst case scenario.

Posit that congress passes a really noxious, "How the FRAK can you even give lip service to the 2A and support that piece of organic fertilizer!?" piece of legislation and - as he almost certainly would - Barama signed it. Remember, IMS the dems have their greatest majority pretty much in my lifetime (5 3/4 decades or there abouts) in both houses INCLUDING what may very well turn out to be a fillibuster-proof senate.

Now, 1) what could be done to stop our soon-to-be AG from expediting inforcement of the new law? Is it possible to get some sort of emergency injunctive relief from SCOTUS?

2) Assuming SCOTUS struck down the new law, what mechanism exists to force the AG to discontinue enforcement of said law? Unless I am mistaken, Law Enforcement is a function of the Executive branch of government and (after POTUS) the AG is the chief LEO in the land. What is to stop the AG from just ordering the FBI, BATF etc. to keep confiscating guns?

Who can make the AG obey the law and the SCOTUS? I don't see impeachment as a viable threat since the same people who passed the law in the first place would be the ones to try the case - assuming they passed a bill of impeachment in the first place?

These are - for the most part - ideologues. True believers almost to a man (OK to a "person"). If leftist judges have no problem utterly steping outside their boundaries and MAKING law - silly me I thought they were only supposed to INTERPRET it - what is there to stop a seriously leftist ideologue of an AG from just pushing forward with the gun roundup DESPITE the law being struck down?

Oh, and I for one have absolutely no faith that when the left has a majority on SCOTUS they will hesitate to reverse any/all "bad" decisions made previously. I mean if they can base decisions on EUROPEAN law as opposed to AMERICAN law, how can we trust them not to be able to perform the mental gymnastics to be able to reverse an earlier decision?

I ask this NOT to start a fight but only to learn. I figure we gotta have at least a couple of lawyers here. In practical terms, what is to stop them if conscience and honor does not?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
C. S. Lewis

 

[WardenWolf]

I believe the term is "Contempt of court."

 

[5knives]

I think it was either Lincoln or FDR (Both ignored Supreme Court rulings at various times) that when warned his actions were UnConstitutional, asked,

"How big an Army does the Supreme Court Have?"

Whoever said it, somehow I doubt that he was the last POTUS to ask that question.

Regards,

 

[BHP FAN]

It was Lincoln,after illegally suspending Habeas Corpus.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Pretty much nothing. SCOTUS won't be of much help. By the time a test case gets to that level of appeal, assuming they even agree to hear it, years will have passed and it will be a done deal. The conveyor belt to the smelter only runs in one direction.

 

[71Commander]

What's To Stop Them?

You.

 

[Bubba613]

What if Obama declared himself dictator for life?
What if the Supreme Court decided to resign en masse and were never replaced?
What if the Feds decided to erase states rights entirely?

The very premise of the questions is stupid. There are more pro-gun Democrats in Congress now than probably ever before. They are not going to vote for an AWB. The gov't is not going to send JBTs around to your house with a list of guns to confiscate.
I am sorry to interrupt the paranoid fantasies running around here, but that's all they are.
Now back to our regularly scheduled discussions.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

There are more pro-gun Democrats in Congress now than probably ever before.

At least that is what we hope. We really don't know much about them yet. They are untested. We'll just have to wait and see what they do once January 20 rolls around. They may leave guns alone, or they may do something right away, hoping that it will blow over before the next election.

Personally, I see new anti-2A legislation being added on to other more important bills. We all know that Obama wants to raise taxes. If the Republicans are opposed to this, the Democrats may offer a smaller tax increase, but add on an AWB or something similar as a compromise. Republicans would probably accept it.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Saying "make me" to some sort of authority has been around for more than 2500 years..., remember Leonidas at Thermopylae who replied to the Persian order to drop his weapons Molon Labe! (Come and get them) which is a variation of "make me"? Then there was the Roman poet Juvenal, who penned Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who watches the watchen?), pointing out the problem of security forces (police, soldiers, militia etc etc) have nothing to stop them from becoming villians after they have secured "order". The writers and signers of the Constitution understood this, and the entire underlying premis of the 2nd Ammendment is to allow the citizens to oppose illegal actions of "the watchmen". The man was right in the previous post..., the ultimate answer to your question is..., YOU.

LD

 

[Cyborg]

Bubba, I am not paranoid. But I do like to think out of the box. I have also been told that I am quite good at devising worst case scenarios to prepare for them. I don't remember where I read it (I used to think that Carl Sandburg said it but can find no quote of his like this) but I recall reading an 11th beatitude "Blessed is the man who expects the worst for to him life is filled with pleasant surprises". I was also taught in Driver's Ed to look down the road ahead, imagine various possible mistakes of my fellow drivers and outright "acts of God" and work out what to do in that eventuality. This thread is the result of that sort of thinking. Do I actually believe the sort of conditions I described are likely to happen? Of course not! But they COULD!

When this scenario occurred to me I immediately thought of THIS FORUM as a place where I could posit the question and get rational reasoned responses. It would appear that Bubba was not interested in reasoned discourse when he read my question last night.

Bubba, you are using both reducto ad absurditum and a straw man - here is the wiki discussion of the straw man fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - to refute my question. You also strongly impplied that I am mentally ill. There is no need to resort to ad hominem attack. If you disagree with me fine. Insulting someone merely because you dislike/disagree with what they say is hardly consistent with rationality and maturity.

To answer your points in order I offer this:

What if Obama declared himself dictator for life?

Then we would well and truely have a dictatorship. This is indeed an unlikely scenario IMHO. But if we had a major civil crisis - pro 2A demonstrations that were reported by the media as "getting out of hand" and/or assasinations of public officials by pro-2A folks - Barama's lapdog congress could easily give him emergency power that would create that effective end. Given that the sheeple, urged by demagogues like Sharpton and Jackson and suchlike would be screaming for the president to "DO SOMETHING!!" the congress could very easily be goaded to do something of that sort - Repubs fearful of losing their own seats as well as dems. Throw in terrorist attacks - Jihadis, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis etc. - and the climate would be perfect for such a "temporary measure". If that happens I am certain we will be reminded of former Associate Justice Robert Jackson's words "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact."

What if the Supreme Court decided to resign en masse and were never replaced?

Why would that even need to happen? I doubt anyone here would/will be surprised if/when some of the oldest serving Associate Justices resign to let younger people fill their seats. If even one of the conservative AJs were to leave the court that would shift the balance of power in favor of Barama and the left. What's to stop a James Earl Ray or Sirhan or Oswald from causing one of the conservative AJs to "step down" (fall down is more like it)?

What if the Feds decided to erase states rights entirely?

As I am not sure what that would entail I do not know how to answer you question. In any case that is not what I asked here.

The scenario I posited is POSSIBLE. How likely any of it is will be played out in the months/years following 20 January next.

 

[Bubba613]

No, the scenario is not possible. It is not possible politically, which is the only thing that counts.
In any case, what kind of legislation do you mean? Do you mean moving .50BMG to Class III status? There isn't anything in the law that would prevent that. Do you mean banning all guns and then conducting a house to house to confiscate them?
That ain't gonna happen. Thinking you are war gaming a worst case scenario is simply fooling yourself.

At least that is what we hope. We really don't know much about them yet. They are untested. We'll just have to wait and see what they do once January 20 rolls around. They may leave guns alone, or they may do something right away, hoping that it will blow over before the next election.

Let's see here: politicians are primarily interested in keeping office. These guys were elected on pro gun platforms. They are really going to go vote for some AWB or other because Nancy Pelosi told them to. This will be despite howls of protest from their own constituents and near death threats from the NRA (see, Daschle, Tom). They will have to go back to their home district, facing a well financed opposition candidate and they will have to explain why they reneged on the one thing they promised their voters.
Yeah, that's likely. Not.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Most of these so-called Pro-Gun Democrats are on record saying they support common sense measures, like renewal of the AWB, and closing the gun show loop hole. They basically adopted the same view points as Bush, and it is not really as pro gun as you claim. They are ambiguous and evasive on the issue. Sure there are a few obviously pro-gun Democrats, but most of these people are untested, and whether or not they are really willing to stand up to party leadership remains to be seen.

To think we are safe from anti-gunners is naive and will result in defeat.

You opinion is very common among people who have tried to justify their vote for Obama by saying he and the Democrats are not anti-gun. It requires a certain degree of magical thinking, but I guess it is possible to justify anything in one's own mind.

Right now everyone says Obama and the Dems have bigger issues to deal with than guns. That is true, but when they realize that there is very little they can do about the big issues like fixing the economy or getting out of Iraq, they will turn to smaller issues. They will have to show results on something to appease their base.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

fairly well ditto 'Lone Gunman'. majority of Pro Democrats are more 'pro-hunting' then pro - 2nd Amendment. many of them support HD handgun ownership but don't support hi-cap (removeable magazine) guns. this is the case with our Congressman here (Dem) AFAIK.
now's the time to contact the really Pro House and Senate members to voice your concerns.
it's just a real shame that criminals and gang-bangers are getting their hands on hi-caps or guns of any sort. it is makeing it tough on legit owners.

 

[HoosierQ]

Wow. People are getting too worked up here IMHO.

• It's not 1938.
• We don't live in the Sudatenland.
• BO is not AH.
• Democrats are not Nazis.
• etc etc.

Get real everybody. I mean real...not complacent, not quite the NRA, just get real and react to the realisitic political realities which are not to our collective liking for sure but...again...real.

 

[Bubba613]

Hoosier, it's more fun and way kewl to say that Democrats dont care about the Constitution or the legal process. That way they can posit that Cuban style dictatorship is right around the corner.
What anybody gets from that except for self congratulations for being kewl and pro-RKBA and all is beyond me.
I'd be thinking about realistic ways to monitor what goes on and how to start a grass roots campaign to get whatever it is we want at the state and Federal level.

 

[50 Shooter]

Sorry but I'm with Lone Gunman on this, your so called pro gun Dems will vote party lines and that's a fact!

I'll bake some pies and get them ready to ship to all of you who think that Obama and the Dems won't go for a new AWB. Keep lying to yourselves, I know it will make it easier when it comes.

The biggest issue that I have is "we the people", to many people talk the talk but aren't willing to walk the walk! I would bet every paycheck that I ever get that if on Jan. 21st Obama said "turn your guns in or go to jail" 80% or better of gun owners would.

Dark times are here and if you can't tell by the massive guns & ammo buying happening right now, you better get REAL! I stand by by words, how many of you will be able to say that when it comes? You can talk all you want here but when reality bites you in the A$$, what are you going to do?

Go ahead and call me paranoid or one of your other childish names but in the end it all comes down to you and what you're willing to do about setting things right.

 

[Cyborg]

now's the time to contact the really Pro House and Senate members to voice your concerns

The fly in that ointment is that none of the "really Pro House" members represent the district in which I reside. The guy who DOES represent my district is anti-2A to his core. He is also a liar. Since congress critters only listen to those who vote in their districts, and since BOTH my senators are in the soon-to-be irrelevant (as in the other side seems about to have a fillibuster-proof majority) minority I don't really have much say. Of course I am used to being in a minority. Here in Alamo Town Anglos are less than 25% of the population.

So keep whistling in the graveyard. The badguys won't do anything really harmful.

Burying your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target. And, Bubba, whether or not someone might be fairly characerized as being paranoid says nothing about the likleyhood of someone planning to attack them. I'd rather plan for senarios that never eventuate than be caught flat-footed when the SHTF.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
C. S. Lewis

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Hoosier, it's more fun and way kewl to say that Democrats dont care about the Constitution or the legal process. That way they can posit that Cuban style dictatorship is right around the corner.

I am not saying that at all, nor do I think anyone else in this thread is. You can overreact to what is being said, if you want, but that is because you are reading without comprehending.

I don't think we will spiral into a communist dictatorship under Obama. But I do think it is very likely the gun show loophole will be closed, private sales will end, and a new AWB will be reinstituted.

 

[hso]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297091

This is pretty extreme conjecture politics as opposed to a legal discussion.