Gun owners beware:
Gun owners beware:
Yawn. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. And that using a gun for traditionally lawful purposes, like self-defense in the home is legal. Whereas a ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment.
That doesn't mean anyone can maintain any weapon whatsoever or that no safety regulations may be enacted. Nor should it. But the basic right of an individual to own a gun is protected, and that is now established whatever indvidual politicians may want.
The Democrats may have a supermajority that could push a constitutional amendment. They can also pick judges for the Supreme Court who favor gun control. Obama is a huge threat to this right.
If you look at the voting records of Democrats, I doubt you'd find enough support to comprise a supermajority to pose an all-out gun ban.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, it has NEVER overturned a decision finding an individual liberty. Actually, the only time the Supreme Court has overturned decisions based on Constitutional rights has been to find an individual liberty exists where one was previously denied.
In fairness, there may well be a difference in what limitations on gun ownership are enacted based on who is President and the majority in Congress. But I really don't think there is any danger of any gun ban passing muster on any fundamental level.
It's one of those wedge issues that parties use to scare voters. Hey, Democrats do it too. Democrats try and scare potential voters with the prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Which I don't see happening eithr.
National Democrat leaders don't support an absolute ban on handguns. Some far-left politicians from liberal strongholds such as San Francisco, Chicago (where Obama is from) and New York City may tout such extremist measures, but few even there. And certainly not anyone trying to carry Pennsylvania, Michigan or Ohio in a presidential (or Senate or Congressional) election. The last time a Democrat nominee supported a ban on handguns was Michael Dukakis, and we all know how that election ended.
The Court did uphold McCain-Feingold, which was an assault on the first amendment.
Never say never. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
Gun Control is a core liberal issue. They can no more turn away from gun control then they can abortion or greater entitlements.
The Democrats stayed away from gun control in the last election because it was dangerous to talk about it and the last crop of candidates were far more moderate then the moonbats who are running now.
They may not challenge the Supreme Court ruling but they could certainly find work arounds that would cripple firearms ownership in this country. Taxation on ammunition, ban on new manufacturing, assault weapon restriction that limits production of most types of firearms. Outright banning of ammunition (which isn't covered by the ruling) just to name a few.
With the outright lies and misrepresentations Obama, Pelois and Ried have based their careers on...do you really think any of them are telling the truth about the gun control agenda they have?
The problem is, that they would enact and impose so many "safety restrictions"; and place so many limitations on what types of guns we as citizens can own, that they would make gun ownership innefective and not worth the time.
No, I don't think that they would outright "ban" anything. They would simply water down and regulate gun ownership to the point of insanity. All in the name of my "safety" of course. This is the liberal mantra, that the individual is too stupid to be responsible for themselves, so they feel that they must collectively be smart for us. Fuck that.
Make no mistake, Obama is an anti gunner. And he will find common ideoligy among the liberal super majority if he is elected. This is why I give money to the NRA, thank god for them.
Well, some individuals are too stupid to be responsible for themselves. And a lot of violence, harm, and accidental deaths ensue because of it. Gun ownership is a right. But it's also a responsibility. But I do agree that any regulation should stop well before 'the point of insanity.'
This is not unique to gun ownership. The elderly cause a huge percentage of car accidents, deadly and nondeadly. More than any group except teenagers in their first year of driving. I don't want to take anyone's right to drive away. But some people are just hazards on the road and can't or won't recognize this. I think a driving test past a certain age to assess basic continued competence is called for.
With guns, it's harder. I don't think there should be any such blanket assessment. Gun ownership is a constituttional right where driving is not. But people who PROVE themselves irresponsible (such as leaving guns carelessly around the house for children to find and not training their children to respect guns) violate their repsonsibility. And should have their right curtailed if their irresponsibility causes harm.
Certain safety regulations are also appropriate. But I agree that many others are innappropriate (and ineffective) and that there is a danger of onerous regulation that does little good depending who is elected.
Not really, no. But most Senate and Congressional Democrats are much more moderate than Obama and Pelosi. Whether based on actual belief or because they have to be because of their constitutents makeup. Probably both.
Outside liberal strongholds, there are really not very many rabid anti-gunners. Whether you look at politicians or their constituents. Like where I'm from in Pennsyvania. I don't know many Democrats who hold a very strong position. Many support reasonable safety measures but are very against onerous regulation, to say the least of outright bans. They chafe at the thought. Add to that the rabid pro-gun people who are against any regulation whatsoever, any politician who supports unduly burdensome and onerous regulation won't be a politician very long.
I'm not saying there would be no difference depending on who is elected. And I'm not sure all of the measures people here oppose. But I just don't see Congress or the national constitutency supporting any unduly burdensome or onerous measures in this day and age. Even Sandy Froman holds this view. Obviously, she supports pro-gun candidates because it matters at the margins and can have an impact on the contours of gun regulation. But I really don't think there's any danger of safety regulations effectively vitiating the right to bear arms.
If it's an issue that's hugely important to you, it should probably factor into your voting calculus. But personally, I could care less about things like waiting periods. I don't view anything that really impedes the fundamental right as likely to pass at the national level.
The lawyer who won the Heller case said that there are more cases coming and there is a logical progression of how these cases need to be submitted otherwise the court could come down with a real restrictive decision on the next case. Ie If someone tries to argue they have a right to a machine gun, it will mess things up for getting more modest precedents set.
So this is not a done deal and the Supreme court is about to have some older judges retire.
I don't take Obama's recent change of heart on gun control at face value, it was a change of opinion that came way to easily and could change back just as easily after he is elected.
Obama and a supermajority would be a disaster for gun owners rights. I don't see how anyone can possibly deny such a thing.
Yeah, that I can see.
It is monumentally baffling that there exists people in this country in significant numbers that cannot recognize Obama and a supermajority would be a disaster for a list of original rights including this one.
I'll be respecting national Dem gun laws about as much as I respect the state of California's.
What measures are you worried about that you think they'd carry the day on?
I'm a gun owner and the last thing I worry about an Obama administration/Democratic Congress doing is taking away my hunting rifle.
The Second Amendment is not under imminent threat. If the Dems hope to hold on to a Congressional majority past two years, any federal laws that significantly alter the status quo will be avoided.
I can only expect change to take place on the local level, however hand gun bans outside of major coastal cities is not foreseen by me.
Yup. There's simply not support for anything beyond minimal, reasonable regulation.
They would implement 1000 small measure such as eliminating gun ranges (lead poisoning the environment) , raising the cost of ammo astronomically, suing the gun manufacturers out of existence and banning importation.
Death by 1000 cuts.
You really don't have a clue.