AWB and Heller

1. Yes.
2. No.

Something else...

There's NO REASON for a new AWB. The last one did nothing to reduce violent crime, and its expiration did nothing to increase it. That much is clear.

They want to have another AWB just to show us that they can, just to prove they have power.

They just want to.

They want to have another AWB just to show us that they can, just to prove they have power.

Click to expand...

You left out the part about punishing us.

There's NO REASON for a new AWB. The last one did nothing to reduce violent crime, and its expiration did nothing to increase it. That much is clear.

They want to have another AWB just to show us that they can, just to prove they have power.

Click to expand...

They'll make up data or use statistics that would seem to show that the AWB 94 was successful and they'll have no problem selling it to an ill informed public. They want to pay off their anti gun supporters like Georgie Soros and others. It won't matter what the real data shows. This is the left wing democratic spin machine we appear ready to hand full power to (Prez, Senate, and House). Hang onto your guns, your wallets and your religion. Barack thinks we are bitter and clinging to those things. Once they control the White House and both sides of Congress, they will rip those from our grasp if they can summon the power to do so. They'll laugh at the USSC if they say anything, just like their leftist buddies in Washington, D.C. are doing.

1. Yes

Click to expand...

From El Tejon

I like this answer and this is the result it will be.

All that has to happen is for the supreme court to overthrow Heller and an AWB is no problem. Like it is with Heller in place.

All that has to happen is for the supreme court to overthrow Heller and an AWB is no problem. Like it is with Heller in place.

Click to expand...

And how does that happen with the 3 prime replacements being 3 Liberals: the aged Stevens(88),the very physically distressed Ginsberg(76)and the homesick Souder(69)?

Heller being overthrown will not happen in your lifetime.
Take that to the bank or Vega's.
You heard it here first.

They'll make up data or use statistics that would seem to show that the AWB 94 was successful

Click to expand...

Come on, you guys HAVE to admit the economy was a heck of lot better under the AWB.



Since when did government ever need a reason to seek to secure its power? They WILL try it.

Our hope will be in grass-roots protests, the NRA, and with the new-wave, pro-gun Democrats that came in in 2007.

I think they'll try and get one passed, but I don't think it will pass or if it does, it will be severely crippled to the point where it will be useless. I think the rhetoric is more along the lines of a last great "hurrah" for the Democrats before their party is destroyed at the polls. I honestly don't see them taking power in all 3 branches anyway.

If you honestly look around you and with a little inquiry, you will deduce that most Americans aren't really that liberal. The current candidates from the democratic party are very left even by Democrat standards. I think many in their party realize this and are wary of it. I guess to clarify; the real hardcore left is going to propose the ban, but I think they'll be metaphorically crapped all over by the majority for doing so.

Heller will protect us inasmuch as they can't go after handguns anymore. Being that handguns are common, it's hardly an extension to assume a "pistol grip" is inherently more natural on a rifle since handguns are so common (common usage). Anything else, we just slam them for banning cosmetic features.

The real clincher is going to be mag capacity bans. I think we can knock this one out of the ballpark. I predict that mag cap bans will be ruled arbitrary. Once that's done, we're home free.

They at the very least will impose so-called "common sense" regulations... It's for our own good you know!

I can already see the argument coming:
"The Clinton AWB was ineffective because it didn't go far enough...."

Heller will protect us inasmuch as they can't go after handguns anymore.

Click to expand...

Heller will protect us until whacko leftist extremist Supreme Court judges discard it with another ruling—and that's only to the extremely limited extent it protects the nation's Second Amendment civil rights today.

I don't see the Supreme Court taking any cases on it.

In Heller they say that right must be consistent with the purpose which is listed in the prefatory clause(to protect the militia) and this is the assumption which Miller operates on. But if you apply the same test they used on Short-Barreled Shotguns in Miller to "Assault Weapons" today, it's clear that not only are they protected, but so must be "Machine Guns". After all, the army doesn't use neutered AWs, they use selective-fire M4s and such. I doubt the army even has non-automatic rifles other than for snipers. In order to keep MGs illegal(which I assume they want to do), they'd have to say that the individuals don't need the same weapons that every nation in the world deems to be necessary for their troops. How could this be consistent with the purpose of protecting a capable militia?

My point is, rather than say MGs are protected they'll simply never issue Cert. to an AW case, because to keep MGs illegal they'd have to not only butcher Miller but even Heller which they just passed. Realistically though, they'll probably just say the militia doesn't need weapons like the military and it's consistent because the militia is bound to be under gunned(though that avoids the point and is illogical).

The common clause in Heller states that you can not ban guns in common use for legal purposes. The AR-15 is the most popular center-fire rifle "assault weapon" in the United States, mainly used for the legal purpose of target shooting. Bushmaster alone has sold countless numbers of them. And that is just one company and one brand of AR-15. Then other "assault weapons", such as semi-automatic AK-47 Clones are everywhere.

The point being, "assault weapons are common, hence they fall under the common clause, hence, they can not be banned now. A new AWB would not pass the new constitutional test.

Cool.We all agree. Heller is here to stay.
Forever and a day.Sorry.From
my favorite song "Our love is here to stay".
The immortal George Gershwin:

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/g/george_gershwin/our_love_is_here_to_stay.html

Wish I was as confident

Frankly, I am concerned about the real possibility of Democratic control of both the house, senate, and the white house. I think another AWB will be in the works, or some other scheme. THEY WILL DO SOMETHING.

The only thing that gives me some hope was the showing in the house of some Democratic Members that appear to be on our side. However,
some nitwhits always cross partly lines to be "Bi-Partisan" so they can get some pork burried in a bill and will sell our rights for some pet project. Sound crazy? Read up on the "Bail-out".

The problem with our system seems to be that despite flying flat in the face of the Supreme Court and the Heller decision, they can enact a law, enforce it and at best it is YEARS before it grinds its way through the legal system. Just ask some of those detainese.

If elected, Obama/Biden will undoubtedly make the AWB a big issue again. Biden is in love with the accursed thing; he's exactly the kind of nut we don't need to give a voice to. Of course, Obama will go with the party as he won't have a clue what to do otherwise; he has a slogan, not a platform. This is the opportunity a lot of ambitious congressmen have been waiting for to shove another AWB down our throats in the name of progress...

...towards the Union of American Socialist Republics.

For Son of AWB to come to pass a substantial number of discrete events will have to happen. Whilst possible, it is very improbable that ALL these would occur at least during the first term.

Political desire

There will need to be, in Congress, Senate and the White House an overwhelming desire by a sufficient number of influential actors to pass a new AWB. Yes there are a number, Pelosi, Biden et-al however, one of the main potential architects and flag wavers, Kennedy is unlikely to be able to, due to health.

Will to spend political capital
The actors will need to be willing to spend substantial amounts of limited internal political capital (favours/funding/back scratch/pork/horse trade/etc) to raise, draft, rinse and repeat, etc any bill. The "spend" wound have to be thrown around like a drunken sailor on shore leave. It would have to take precedence over almost any other bill and would have to be sold at every stage.
This would be amplified enormously with external "capital", every constituent of every one of the fat controllers will be screaming that it's NOT F&*$ING important, what about the economy, Health care, War, deflation, inflation, 401K, foreclosures, lay offs etc etc.

Change in the Supreme Court
The SC is inherently conservative, that's conservative with a small C. They took over 200 years to make the first substantive ruling on 2A and to overturn such a substantial ruling in less than 4 years is anathema to any judge. To even have the possibility would require a massive sea change in the structure of the SC. Unless the politicals decide to stuff the SC from 9 to say 20 and successfully mange to get the additional 11 in through the vetting process AND the newbies (who now have life tenure) actually vote the way they are supposed to, no changes. If the current 9 change it is statistically likely that we would have 3 "liberals" leave and be replaced like for like. No changes.

Change in the personal political landscape
There would have to be a sweeping change in the belief system of many Americans for an outright assault on 2A. Statistically and even the Brady Campaign accept this, most Americans accept 2A as it is written and believed and see no need to change. They are worried about their families, jobs, health and the economy and demand the pols focus in that. An outright assault on 2A consuming a massive amount of the political process during this time will not be tolerated.

These 4 items are not exhaustive and there are more issues that will impact.

Now, each of these factors COULD come to fruition but for ALL to occur, particularly in the current commercial/personal/political/economic cycle makes it very UNLIKELY.

It is PROBABLE, that as a sop to certain single issue politicians, AWB II may be raised then allowed to die gracefully in committee. "Guys/Gals, look we tried but you now how it is, don't worry we'll keep looking at it"

Now 4 years time.......

My worry about a new AWB is not in the Dems making a huge fuss about it but rather sneaking an AWB into part of Obama's health care plan, you know, something that people want and would push hard to pass. Make the health care plan fat with benefits and people would cry to pass it along with a sneaky little AWB and whatever else the Dems feel like throwing in.

In case you guys haven't noticed, the political left did learn something about banning guns with the Clinton AWB. They now know how we worked around it (evidenced by the much meaner HR 1022). They know how much political damage it caused. And they know how badly it backfired by waking up the NRA.

HOWEVER, they also learned a few other things to their benefit. They learned how to take advantage of the short attention span and poor memory of the American populace. They learned how to backdoor bills by burying controversial legislature in widely supported measures that are politically toxic to oppose. They learned that the legislature can be partially circumvented by executive orders. Most importantly, they learned the value of patience.

They have been waiting for an opportunity such as this ever since 1996. They're going to get a solidly democratic senate, a solidly democratic house, and the most leftist president in the history of the USA. They're going to get to put younger, more liberal faces on the supreme court.

There are no guarantees here, but the climate is ripe for the state to clamp down HARD on the citizens, and plenty of idiotic idealists are pushing for it to happen. Far too many of those people fear all guns and will happily scream as loudly as they can for more bans and to drown out the voices of rationality and fact. People are crying for a big welfare state, and they're going to get it simply by being the majority who cries and guilts long enough. These people don't see guns as part of their utopia, and want them gone. NONE of this makes for guarantees, but it certainly makes me, and ought to make every one of you, uneasy.

The point being, "assault weapons are common, hence they fall under the common clause, hence, they can not be banned now. A new AWB would not pass the new constitutional test.

Click to expand...

Most of us would agree that the first AWB was unconstitutional. Politicians who would support a ban aren't going to care whether or not it is constitutional.


Also, I don't think Obama will even consider the political ramifications of an AWB. He's so convinced that he knows what's right for America, he's not going to stop and consider what the American people think. Nothing terrifies me more than the prospect of a tyrant who truly believes that he's doing what's best for the country.

Someone who's after power will at least slow down when they sense that they are losing public support; an idealist like Obama will continue to promote his extremist agenda to the bitter end.

I'm uneasy, but a lot less uneasy than I would have been without Heller.

I can see import restrictions via executive order or rulemaking sneaking by easier than anything though.

If you can ban military surplus barrel importation, can certainly do the same to magazines.

Of course, the barrel ban has been so supremely effective that US alternatives (maybe not as nice, or as cheap) sprang up almost immediately for the kits affected that are built into semis.

We won't be nickled and dimed by legislation though imo, it'll be by bureaucratic redefinitions of 'pistol' or 'rifle' and whatnot under the authority that NFA/GCA/FOPA gave to ATF to regulate the industry and what it produces. It'll be harassment of FFL holders, SOT holders, and wait times from hell on NFA transactions designed to slow down and eliminate that market. They'll find something new to cockblock F1/F4 transfers worse than the CLEO signoff, or require an additional background check that's prohibitively expensive, or something equally stupid.

And most gun owners will never see it coming.

And on NFA stuff, NRA will do nothing to help us.

Dave Markowitz attended a Gura lecture.

http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-got-to-meet-alan-gura-today.html

Gura's take on the matter is that an AWB would be struck down, which implies, of course, the litigation necessary to strike it down.

This is consistent with my own reading of Heller, which has some very strong language blankly asserting that such broad sweeping bans would not pass.

Well, THEY know why the AWB failed the first time...

It failed the first time because it didn't outlaw existing "evil" rifles. With so many of them already in disribution, OF COURSE it didn't have much effect! All they have to do the next time is exactly what Diane Fienstien said, "American, turn them all in!"

- - - Yoda

===========