AWB and Heller

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

The Democrats have known of the above for decades as have the Republicans. Politicians of both parties use these tactics routinely. The Democrats didn't learn any of that from the AWB.

Go lurk on Democratic Underground. There is a fair number of liberals there who fear the issue of gun control. They don't disagree with the concept, mind. They have noticed a trend where some gun control is passed and then many Democrats get creamed in the next election. These Democrats believe that is a result of those politicians voting for gun control. Therefore, simply as a pragmatic tactic, these guys want to avoid support gun control bills.
 
Something I'm wondering about is whether Heller could be used to challenge the closing of the NFA machine gun registry in 1986. That was a ban.
 
Yoda, there is no way the Democrats will pass a ban that doesn't include a Grandfather Clause. Banning guns and grandfathering existing ones is one thing, trying to go around the country confiscating guns is quite another. Neither party would allow their fanatics to let confiscation be laid at their doorstep. I don't want to advocate breaking the law, but I don't think I have to say what would happen if they tried to take people's gun collections (which are worth thousands of dollars that they legally bought with their hard earned money). They would most certainly be grandfathered. But I'm not even worried about a ban with a grandfather clause, because assault weapons are "in common use".
 
Something I'm wondering about is whether Heller could be used to challenge the closing of the NFA machine gun registry in 1986. That was a ban.
__________________

I know I've said it before, if there wasn't a closed registry, select fire would be common use, or at least commonly owned. So, how does something banned or heavily regulated ever get to be common use?

They have us in a catch 22.

Let's open up the registry and find out...
 
Something I'm wondering about is whether Heller could be used to challenge the closing of the NFA machine gun registry in 1986. That was a ban.

The writing in the decision pretty much invites it with a proper test case. Attempt to register an AR-15 so it's as close as humanly possible to the issued weapon, get refused, and there's standing.

Even an extremely narrow victory allowing weapons used/issued by the US military would open up far more than just the M16.
 
So, how does something banned or heavily regulated ever get to be common use?
It won't in the civil sphere, but if Miller was any indication, the military is really who should be looked at when considering which weapons are common/useful for the traditionally lawful purpose of defending the "state".
 
Technically, I would agree. However, I think that a better case can be made that since the police are issued with M-16 series arms, they are clearly acceptable for civil uses...and that section 922(o), which prohibits the manufacture of MGs for civil sale, is therefore unconstitutional.
 
But you don't need a Civil-M16, your Civil-Servants have them.... to protect you.... from the civil-servants...:rolleyes:
 
How do stripped lowers work under an AWB if I had purchased them before the ban?
 
How do stripped lowers work under an AWB if I had purchased them before the ban?

Depends upon the terms of the ban itself. Its kind of hard to say how a ban would treat stripped lowers if you don't know what the ban says (because it hasn't ben written or passed yet).
 
I think everallm has it right. A Democratic administration will be focusing on the economy, healthcare, and the war. I don't think they'll be able to invest in the effort to get another AWB through.

I think Heller will protect us from cosmetic bans, but I can see mag capacity restrictions going through. It depends on the makeup of the court. If Obama gets elected this November, I hope he chooses Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as a supreme court nominee.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Janet_Napolitano_Gun_Control.htm

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.
I think he's much smarter than you give him credit for. Choosing Biden as a running mate, someone who criticized him heavily in the primaries and has strengths where Obama is lacking (eg foreign policy), implies to me that he isn't so proud he won't listen to advice. What scares me most is the thought of a puppet president who doesn't have his own opinions and is thus unable to judge the advice he receives.
 
With regard to Belus's comment, Obama went to Harvard and came up through Chicago machine politics.

You may not agree on some/many/all his stances but he is neither stupid or politically naive.

Now, not to be too cynical, but the immediate aim of any newly elected politician is to get re-elected. That is why I ended my analysis with "Well what happens in 4 years......"

In 2 years the incumbent will start to raise money, do the rubber chicken circuits and start to spend their tokens of support and arm twisting. The economy will probably be well on the way to recovery, who knows about the rest....? In this case the president will need to do anything necessary to get re-elected and that particularly includes NOT scaring voters/contributers. Nothing controversial in the bills, everyones friend, about 2 years of smiling and heartburn.

This is why I would focus my concerns after the end of the next election cycle. When a pol wants to burnish their legacy.....that's when they're dangerous.

They can spend the political capital THEN as they don't have to worry about getting re-elected.
 
I'm afraid that there may be another way that an AWB could pass. I hope this does not happen. I do not want this to happen. But I think it is quite possible that it could.

An assasination of the Newly Elected President by a lunatic with an "Assult Weapon" might cause such an reaction. Especially if children were killed along with him.:barf:

Or if a some agency (terrorist, foreign power, doomsday cult, assorted wacko's of the week, etc......) had say a dozen members used "Assult Weapons" to perpatrate multiple massacres at shopping malls (4 malls with 3 shooters per mall say) the day after turkey day.:barf:


These are all unpleasent and horrible scenarios, might change the amount of political capitol required (Remember GCA68 :cuss:) making it so much lower that it would be possible.

Also please remember that whoever with the election they will not have much money at all for promises already made. Therefore I think that they may want to try to fufil promises that do not cost many dollars to make.

As always I could be wrong.

NukemJim
 
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)?

Finally, a non-pessimist.

I understand everyones fears, but I think it will be more challenging to trash Heller than we think. Honestly, I hope Obama keeps pushing more anti-gun rhetoric... I think it is somewhat poisonous to his campaign.

An assasination of the Newly Elected President by a lunatic with an "Assult Weapon" might cause such an reaction. Especially if children were killed along with him.

This is my biggest fear. Some nut-sack wacks Obama, and makes all gun owners look like psycho's.
Luckily, nowadays it is pretty hard to shoot a President.
 
But even if an assassination or multiple horrible shootings happen, that doesn't change the fact that "assault weapons" are common, and therefor protected under Heller.
 
But even if an assassination or multiple horrible shootings happen, that doesn't change the fact that "assault weapons" are common, and therefor protected under Heller.

Most people won't care about the second amendment if something like that happens... Half of the country would be calling for banning all guns.

Didn't we get a lot of anti-gun laws after JFK?
 
Heller won't prevent another AWB from being passed in congress and signed by the president.

Which promptly gets thrown at the SC for overturn on constitutional grounds based on Heller.

Doesn't mean it can't happen, just makes it much more likely to be overturned.

This makes the fat controllers look like a set of jackasses which refocuses the electorate on "Why the hell aren't they focusing on the real problems, economy/health care/WoT etc etc"
 
Let there be no doubt that some folks out there really, really, REALLY want to see a new semiauto ban.

http://tinyurl.com/437h6x

And damn, people, will you please quit refering to semiautos as "assault weapons?" Even the title of this thread errs in that way. What does an AWB have to do with "assault weapons?" It's a semiauto ban, pure and simple.
 
The reason for banning so-called mislabled "assault weapons" can't be to reduce crime, because the FBI's 2007 Crime Report says they are used in a mere 1% of crime.


FBI's Crime Report Bad News for Anti-Gunners

Friday, September 19, 2008

This week, the FBI released its crime report for 2007 and, once again, gun control supporters are taking it on the chin.

It's not just that the nation's violent crime rate decreased slightly between 2006 and 2007. It's that every year since 2002 it has been lower than anytime since 1974, leading the Justice Department to say that violent crime is "near a 30-year low." Since 1991, violent crime has dropped 38 percent. Murder is now at a 40-year low, lower than anytime since 1966 every year from 1999 to the present, and down 43 percent since 1991.

"More guns means more crime?" Only in anti-gunner "La-La Land." Violent crime has fallen as the number of guns has increased 4.5 million a year. There are more gun owners, owning more guns than ever before, and violent crime is lower than anytime since Gerald Ford became president!

We can hardly wait to see the Brady Campaign try to spin this one with its asinine "state grades" stunt. In 2007, the major U.S. cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control. The top three? Detroit (where Michigan law requires a permit to purchase a handgun), Baltimore (where Maryland law restricts private handgun sales and requires a seven-day waiting period on handgun sales by dealers), and the District of Columbia (with its handgun ban and its firearm registration law). Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and D.C. had the highest robbery rates.

In 2007, as in years past, Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent, murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11 percent. Further, in 2007, 32 percent of murders were committed without firearms of any sort--knives accounted for 12 percent, hands and feet six percent, and blunt objects four percent. Rifles and shotguns (semi-automatic and otherwise) accounted for three percent each, and typically "assault weapons" have accounted for about one percent.

From Here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4181
 
They won't try it during his first term. Doing so would guarantee it would be his ONLY term. His current success in the polls is due to the fact that he has managed to convince ENOUGH of the people that he isn't a raving radical socialist racist who associates with known terrorists. As soon as he starts banging the gun drum, he would be revealed.

And remember, there is more to getting Heller overturned than picking liberal justices. A case has to make it that far. It took 70 years to get Heller that far, through greatly varied courts. Courts have a principle called Stare Decesis, which means, when in doubt, "let the existing ruling stand". Meaning, when an appellate court receives an appeal, they will begin with the assumption that previous rulings on the subject have been correct. The new case must have substantially different circumstances for it to be considered in overturning existing rulings.

In all honestly, what I see happening, is AKs and other imported 'assualt' weapons getting thrown under the bus to save rifles 'in common use'. (ARs.) The AR has become the most popular rifle in the nation, while the AK is still largely an icon of revolution in places other than here. Sometime within 20 years.
 
Last edited:
You may not agree on some/many/all his stances but he is neither stupid or politically naive.

That was before the cult of personality began. Most candidates don't refer to their aircraft with a derivation of Air Force One, present themselves as equals to world leaders, craft their own presidential seals, etc.
 
That was before the cult of personality began. Most candidates don't refer to their aircraft with a derivation of Air Force One, present themselves as equals to world leaders, craft their own presidential seals, etc.

Not to Godwinize this, but Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-Dong, Stalin, et al. were also quite enamored with themselves. None were what you'd call unsuccessful politicians...
 
Not to Godwinize this, but Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-Dong, Stalin, et al. were also quite enamored with themselves. None were what you'd call unsuccessful politicians...
Don't forget liked and heavily supported by most of thier respective populations when they came to power.
 
What scares me most is the thought of a puppet president who doesn't have his own opinions and is thus unable to judge the advice he receives.

then how the hell have you been dealing with the last eight years? I mean, srsly... I guess that since Bush was the puppet that wouldnt ban guns, it was okay...:p

Anywho, Heller does not have much ground to stand on. It is weak law at this point; it is new, it is still yet to be properly enforced, and it is narrow and unsupported by precendent. However, should incorporation, or should other bans be overturned in the wake of Heller, then Heller will have a powerful standing that can be truly deemed as 'good law'. If done so, then it is theoretically possible that an AWB will fail 'the test', and that a test case against the MG freeze (which sounds scary because the test-casee will end up being a defendant who could end up going to jail for a long time) could rationally (even if it wouldnt politically) survive the Heller test.

However, Heller took like six years. Sure, Heller will allow some groundwork for other cases to plow through and get to the SC sooner, but it still isnt going to happen before Obama gets settled in, should he win. The pace of politics can go up and down. With an all-dem government...who knows how fasrt or slow they can pour the bills in.

Another thing to keep in mind is that alot of pols will reject bills based on those underlying attachments. Sure, they'll all vote for a good healthcare bill, but they may ask that the irrelevant and potentially career-threatening 'ban guns' attachment gets taken off first so that they can vote for it without the NRA on their backs.

Not to Godwinize this, but Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-Dong, Stalin, et al. were also quite enamored with themselves. None were what you'd call unsuccessful politicians...

technically, most of them were successful to their country, but not to their people. Big difference there. If success is measured by control and inhumanity towards fellow countrymen, then sure... they kept the country going in a politically uniform direction. then of course there are the ones who werent successful at doing anything...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top