Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms drop their opposition to a gun control bill for a carve-out

[jdc1244]

the attacks on the 2nd, are now coming hard at the state levels

Actually not.

The states have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, reflecting the will of the people of the states, provided such regulations are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Gun Dealer Licensing measure hasn’t even been signed into law, much less struck down by a Federal court as un-Constitutional.

Consequently, the proposed measure isn’t an ‘attack’ on the Second Amendment.

An attack on the Second Amendment would be a state seeking to ban all handguns, or seeking to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

And the notion of ‘boycotting’ Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms is as naïve as it is pointless.

Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with a firearm manufacturer ending opposition to a measure that hasn’t yet been subject to judicial review to determine its constitutionality.

 

[C0untZer0]

Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with a firearm manufacturer ending opposition to a measure that hasn’t yet been subject to judicial review to determine its constitutionality.

Well you're in the minority with this opinion because the NRA, the Illinois State Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and IlinoisCarry all considered it to be an infringement of the Second Amendment, as did hundreds of thousands of gun owners. The ISRA was probably the most sympathetic to SA and RRA, since they received quite a bit of money from those two manufacturers, but even the ISRA never said:

"there’s nothing wrong with a firearm manufacturer ending opposition to a measure that hasn’t yet been subject to judicial review to determine its constitutionality."

 

[carsten1911]

And the notion of ‘boycotting’ Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms is as naïve as it is pointless.

At least in my book a boycott is the harshest (legal) means people can take against any company.
Companies exist to SELL stuff...nobody buys, they go broke pretty fast.
Why should anyone think a boycott would be "pointless"?

Greetings
C

 

[Yo Mama]

At least in my book a boycott is the harshest (legal) means people can take against any company.
Companies exist to SELL stuff...nobody buys, they go broke pretty fast.
Why should anyone think a boycott would be "pointless"?

Greetings
C

Both companies would not go broke with selling 4 less guns, which would be the net total loss of a current "boycott".

 

[carsten1911]

Both companies would not go broke with selling 4 less guns, which would be the net total loss of a current "boycott".

Well, I think I could pull any number that fits my ideas out of the thin air to support my position, too.
Let me give it a try:
Say 10.000 guns less sold per company . That makes a difference.
The number is VERY easy to achieve if the institutions that mark the acticities as anti-constitutional would work to make that happen.

Now what?

Carsten

 

[Yo Mama]

Well, I think I could pull any number that fits my ideas out of the thin air to support my position, too.
Let me give it a try:
Say 10.000 guns less sold per company . That makes a difference.
The number is VERY easy to achieve if the institutions that mark the acticities as anti-constitutional would work to make that happen.

Now what?

Carsten

Utopia vs. reality

10,000 less sold per company has not nor would ever happen. So the net effect of a "boycott" would be perspective buyers loosing out on a great gun and the company giving a rip. What did work in this case was to speak with both companies about the firearms community concerns, where they then responded positively.

I hate boycotts, they are ineffective, and propagated by hysteria.

 

[plodder]

[QUOTE="I hate boycotts, they are ineffective, and propagated by hysteria.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. They seem to be quite effective for the Lefties and subversives when aided by their friends and cohorts in the media.

 

[DoubleMag]

boycotts are (LoL) ineffective (LoL) or uneffective (LoL)

2 or 3 gun sales lost are (LoL) **effective

Um, er....they changed their minds because of the possibility of losing sales, boycotts, phone calls little alone actually having it done (???) (LoL)

Previous applicable statements are very obviously (LoL) for humor, and humor (LoL) alone.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The states have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, reflecting the will of the people of the states, provided such regulations are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do the courts not understand?

 

[boom boom]

Actually not.

The states have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, reflecting the will of the people of the states, provided such regulations are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Gun Dealer Licensing measure hasn’t even been signed into law, much less struck down by a Federal court as un-Constitutional.

Consequently, the proposed measure isn’t an ‘attack’ on the Second Amendment.

An attack on the Second Amendment would be a state seeking to ban all handguns, or seeking to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

And the notion of ‘boycotting’ Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms is as naïve as it is pointless.

Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with a firearm manufacturer ending opposition to a measure that hasn’t yet been subject to judicial review to determine its constitutionality.

Nope, states don't have that power anymore since MacDonald v. City of Chicago where the 2nd Amendment was incorporated via the 14th. State and local police powers to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens under the 10th amendment are now limited in relation to firearms (and also now non-lethal things such as Tasers).

Right now, neither Heller nor MacDonald reached what level of scrutiny that the court will give, but the lower courts have increasingly settled on intermediate scrutiny with a few still holding out for rational basis and a very few arguing for strict scrutiny. The test then for state action under intermediate scrutiny requires that the Government have an important objective, the Government has the burden to prove both that the objective is important and that the state's action is substantially related to obtaining that object. For example, Chicago attempts to ban firearm sales and firing ranges was held to be unconstitutional as it put undue burden on the citizens without proving that these actions were substantially related to advance the state's goal of public safety. The recent Peruta 9th Circuit panel decision decided likewise regarding carry permits but was overruled by the 9th En Bloc and the Sup. Ct. denied cert. while the 7th Circuit more or less made Illinois move to a must issue as it appears that the district court in DC likewise struck down requiring a "good reason" for desiring a permit.

 

[Xeon256]

Actually not.

The states have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, reflecting the will of the people of the states, provided such regulations are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Gun Dealer Licensing measure hasn’t even been signed into law, much less struck down by a Federal court as un-Constitutional.

Consequently, the proposed measure isn’t an ‘attack’ on the Second Amendment.

An attack on the Second Amendment would be a state seeking to ban all handguns, or seeking to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

And the notion of ‘boycotting’ Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms is as naïve as it is pointless.

Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with a firearm manufacturer ending opposition to a measure that hasn’t yet been subject to judicial review to determine its constitutionality.

Bull, a state does not trump the constitution nor the 2nd amendment, ever.

 

[everydefense]

Bull, a state does not trump the constitution nor the 2nd amendment, ever.

*shouldn't. Doesn't mean they haven't, or won't, clearly...

(Note that I'm referring to historic fact, not what I believe is right.)