Kiss Heller Goodbye?

As stated here numerous times, if Hussein gets in there, eapecially with the Marxists in full control of the congress as this article suggests , we may as well kiss Heller goodbye.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzFiZDgzZDY0ZTUzMTY2NjI2MzQwZmQzZTdjNDNiMzE=

If the more frightening polls are correct, America is about to elect the most left-wing government in history: an Obama Oval Office, a Pelosi House of Representatives, a filibuster-proof Senate and a year or two down the road maybe three new Supreme Court justices.

Click to expand...

The boogymen are coming for your guns!

ChannelCat said:

As stated here numerous times, if Hussein gets in there, eapecially with the Marxists in full control of the congress as this article suggests , we may as well kiss Heller goodbye.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzFiZDgzZDY0ZTUzMTY2NjI2MzQwZmQzZTdjNDNiMzE=

Click to expand...

I don't see the Heller decision being overturned anytime soon, if ever. It's going to be a decision much like Roe vs. Wade - much talked about for political gain, but the Scalia opinion grossly outweighed the dissenting opinions, which were all fluff and air, and had nothing to substantiate them, unlike Scalia's opinion which had reference after reference after reference to past laws, decisions and writings by the Framers.

the heller decision wasn't nearly as close as many think, the 5-4 ruling was over scope, not over individual/collective rights, a more liberal court may have ruled slightly differently but they still would have ruled the 2nd amendment an individual right.

anyway, I doubt a 2nd amendment case will be back in the SCOTUS anytime soon regardless of who's on the bench.

Charybdis69 said:

The boogymen are coming for your guns!

Click to expand...

Well, aren't they?

We're about to elect the most liberal anti-gun president that this country has ever seen and put him there along with one of the most liberal anti-gun congresses in history.

The current democratic party has demonstrated that they have no regard for the will of the people once they are in power. Just take a look at the tax increases from the Maryland Special Session and the bailout bill that was rammed down our throats at the national level.

BTW....they decided that wasn't enough and they're coming back for more money to bail out the banks next.

There's McCarthy's new and improved AWB sitting in the wings just waiting for the chance to have a democrat president and congress. This will be a perfect storm for the anti-gun lobby to try to ram through the AWB at the very least and, if we have some Columbine-like tragedy, it will be FAR more reaching.

Back to the question posed by the OP.....Heller, per se, won't go anywhere but you will get to see what the Anointed One defines as a "reasonable" restriction and that will effectively neuter the ruling without him having to expend the political capital to have it stricken.

We will see people continue to say "they're not coming for your guns" right up to the point, and probably including that point, where they are actually in your house taking them away......ironically at gun point.

I thought I read that the paper being pushed by the UN trying to ban handguns worldwide would trump the US constitution as things currently stand.

Norton said:

Well, aren't they?
We're about to elect the most liberal anti-gun president that this country has ever seen and put him there along with one of the most liberal anti-gun congresses in history.

The current democratic party has demonstrated that they have no regard for the will of the people once they are in power. Just take a look at the tax increases from the Maryland Special Session and the bailout bill that was rammed down our throats at the national level.

BTW....they decided that wasn't enough and they're coming back for more money to bail out the banks next.

There's McCarthy's new and improved AWB sitting in the wings just waiting for the chance to have a democrat president and congress. This will be a perfect storm for the anti-gun lobby to try to ram through the AWB at the very least and, if we have some Columbine-like tragedy, it will be FAR more reaching.

We will see people continue to say "they're not coming for your guns" right up to the point, and probably including that point, where they are actually in your house taking them away......ironically at gun point.

Click to expand...

And that's always the thing that scares the masses - crazy people with guns. I understand what is potentially down the pipe. Perhaps I should be concerned, because the pro-gun lobby is completely toothless.

Charybdis69 said:

The boogymen are coming for your guns!

Click to expand...

Probably not, but with a strong dem Congress and Obama in the White House and possibly two pro-Heller justices possibly dying or retiring, there is a chance.
Let's say if there is a fillibuster proof majority in Congress, Obama is in charge and only the only two dying justices were pro Heller, then there is a one in two chance Heller is overturned or watered down to almost nothing, but the odds of the perfect storm of this happening is only one in five. That is a one in ten chance the boogeymen can have the Constitutional ability to come after our guns.
Since Obama has stated that is what he wants to do since Fienstein has supposedly said in the past if she had the votes she would ban all guns this means we have an arbitrary figure of maybe a one in twenty chance of them coming to take our guns.
Sure, one in twenty is not that much, but if the odds were that good in Lotto, then I would be rich.

Charybdis69 said:

And that's always the thing that scares the masses - crazy people with guns. I understand what is potentially down the pipe. Perhaps I should be concerned, because the pro-gun lobby is completely toothless.

Click to expand...

Despite the NRA being around, the 1994 "assault weapons" ban was passed now wasn't it?
In Canada despite two national gun lobby organizations, they have many banned and prohibitted firearms and total registration which is a PITA to conform to.
In England it took just ONE school shooting and they banned all handguns within about one year. The political movement got its start overnight and within months there was legislation. Ever hear of the Snowdrops campaign?

If you think the same cannot happen here and have massive gun control, registration and bans if we have a mass shooting with a majority dem congress with Obama in office, then you are being naive. If we get complacent thinking it is impossible and we let our guard down expecting the NRA to come riding in on their white horse, then that is how we end with stuff like "assault weapons bans" and the GCA.

Charybdis69 said:

The boogymen are coming for your guns!

Click to expand...

Not boogymen. Just misguided people who think they know better than you how you should think and act, and what you can own. And they will make sure that you do what's best for you. And the guns won't be gone all at once. But they will be gone. They used to own plenty of guns in Australia too. One bad incident in 1996 and the government used public sentiment to overwhelm the gun rights organizations. All the privately owned semiautos were in the furnaces before a year was up. I'm sure they laughed at the possibility there once too.

kohburn said:

I thought I read that the paper being pushed by the UN trying to ban handguns worldwide would trump the US constitution as things currently stand.

Click to expand...

International treaties ratified by Congress do not preempt the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution. If we still have the uninfringed individual RKBA, then an international treaty will not be enforceable. However, if the SC watered down the Heller decision, then we may be subject to a treaty banning semi autos, requireing registration, licensing, etc.

Norton said:

Well, aren't they?

We're about to elect the most liberal anti-gun president that this country has ever seen and put him there along with one of the most liberal anti-gun congresses in history.

The current democratic party has demonstrated that they have no regard for the will of the people once they are in power. Just take a look at the tax increases from the Maryland Special Session and the bailout bill that was rammed down our throats at the national level.

BTW....they decided that wasn't enough and they're coming back for more money to bail out the banks next.

There's McCarthy's new and improved AWB sitting in the wings just waiting for the chance to have a democrat president and congress. This will be a perfect storm for the anti-gun lobby to try to ram through the AWB at the very least and, if we have some Columbine-like tragedy, it will be FAR more reaching.

Back to the question posed by the OP.....Heller, per se, won't go anywhere but you will get to see what the Anointed One defines as a "reasonable" restriction and that will effectively neuter the ruling without him having to expend the political capital to have it stricken.

We will see people continue to say "they're not coming for your guns" right up to the point, and probably including that point, where they are actually in your house taking them away......ironically at gun point.

Click to expand...

There are millions of Ausralians, Canadians, and Englishmen who probably thought their guns were safe too, but now they are disarmed for the most part, and merely provide us with talking points about the statistical increases in crime, and steady erosion of liberties. We are one of the last nations on earth that allows citizens to posess effective firearms, even though not too long ago it was commonplace across the world, and despite volumes worth of statistics showing each and every way disarmament goes hand in hand with a vulnerability to crime, and loss of liberties, the steady march of gun bans continues across the world.

There are also risks that go beyond mere statistics, for instance as an average American, you have a 1 in 6 chance of being the victim of a violent crime, about the same as those who will be seriously injured in a car accident. Although you stand an 83% chance of not being involved in either, most people wear set belts, and the government mandates airbags and minimum crash test standards, and in the vast majority of the country states allow concealed carry for protection. Just like russian roulet with a 6 shooter, the odds are in your favor, but the results of being the "1 in 6" is dire enough to warrant action. The fact that socialists of one name or another have also been responsible for the death of 100,000,000 civilians in the span of 100 years IMO is a similarly dire result of being on the short end of a statistic. That makes the situation we are in all the more important. We are less than a month away from potentially handing the country over to a group of people who have shown nothing but contempt for Freedom and America as we know it, and have gone aggainst 90% of the public in making policy decisions. The fact that Heller required hundreds of pages worth of opinions to define what the founders meant by "shall not be infringed" shows how far away from our roots we have come, and how little reguard those in power show for the constitution. DC itself, the city that hosts our government has also shown a wholesale disreguard for the decision of SCOTUS, and the constitution, what makes you think Obama and a supermajority in congress will be different. Ultimately the constitution is a peice of paper, and the SCOUTUS is merely 9 elderly folks with no power other than respect for their position, and any would be dictator knows that. The only thing standing between us and the death of our nation is 80 million people with the means to do something about it, although a steady education of apathy has largely eroded that ultimate defense from tyranny, and it is almost certain that an Obama led government would try to do away with the rest.

Charybdis69 said:

The boogymen are coming for your guns!

Click to expand...

Probably not until after that Hurricane comes up the bay and makes landfall at Chsapeake Beach...

zoostation said:

Not boogymen. Just misguided people who think they know better than you how you should think and act, and what you can own. And they will make sure that you do what's best for you. And the guns won't be gone all at once. But they will be gone. They used to own plenty of guns in Australia too. One bad incident in 1996 and the government used public sentiment to overwhelm the gun rights organizations. All the privately owned semiautos were in the furnaces before a year was up. I'm sure they laughed at the possibility there once too.

Click to expand...

The story about Australia is usually mixed with truth and myth. THe Port Arthur massacre did lead to gun bans and such as well as strict handgun control, but it did not ban all semi autos and the handgun control is state by state from what i understand. For instance in one state you have to keep the handgun at the range locked up and in others you can bring your semi auto handgun home with you.
Semi auto centerfire rifles are restricted country wide, but semi auto handguns are ok from what I read.

But in any case, your point is correct, alsthough gun control is really up to the states, the massacre was the leverage for the pro gun states to sign an agreement allowing the basic restrictions like semi auto rifles and caliber restrictions for handguns. It was a comprehensive gun control legislation that devastated the legal gun ownership culture, but didn't totally destroy it.

alucard0822 said:

...
There are also risks that go beyond mere statistics, for instance as an average American, you have a 1 in 6 chance of being the victim of a violent crime, about the same as those who will be seriously injured in a car accident. ...

Click to expand...

They are about the same, but the number you used is about over a lifetime as an adult. The odds every year of being in a car accident where you are injured enough to go to the hospital is about one in 150 and the odds every year (at current trends) of being the victim of a violent crime is about one in 200 (at current trends).
The odds of winning roulette is one in 36. Live in America for five years and your odds of being the victim of a violent crime are greater than winning a bet on a roulette spin.

Novus, you should look at Australia's gun laws. Okay not every single semiauto rifle was banned, but anything that could hold over 5 rounds was, even Ruger 10/22's. And the handguns are generally limited to no bigger than .38 caliber in size. It's pretty darn bad there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, paintball guns, and airsoft/soft air rifles (depending on State).
Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.
Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and professional sporting shooters can own working Category C firearms)
Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are restricted to occupational shooters [1].)
Category H: handguns including air pistols, deactivated handguns and firearms not exceeding 65 cm in total length. Target shooters can acquire handguns of .38" calibre or less.
(Participants in "approved" competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for unstated reasons. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols, and magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handgun collectors are exempt from the laws stated above.)

Category R/E: restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, .50-calibre BMG weapons, etc. (Collectors in some states only, weapons must be comprehensively deactivated. Deactivated firearms are still subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as 'live' firearms in many states.)

Click to expand...

zoostation said:

Novus, you should look at Australia's gun laws. Okay not every single semiauto rifle was banned, but anything that could hold over 5 rounds was, even Ruger 10/22's. And the handguns are generally limited to no bigger than .38 caliber in size. It's pretty darn bad there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Click to expand...

I agree, it is bad and ridiculous and you are right this is all because of rampant anti gun Mulrooney was in power when the Port Arthur massacre occured. Mulrooney and Obama are probably about equal on how strict they want gun control to be and if they both had their way all handguns would be banned and almost all rifles.

You can own a semi auto .45 handgun if you are compete in a shooting sport, but it is a PITA and in some states you have to leave it at the gun range. It is also expensive to own firearms in Australia because of registration/licensing fees and gun club membership requirements.
Oh yea, it is bad there. But I just wanted to make sure we know accurately how bad it is.

Does this mean we should start buying our AR's, Ak's, etc...now? Or wait until after Nov 4? I'm just afraid that after Nov. 4, there might be a 'rush' on those products

DizzyV6P said:

Does this mean we should start buying our AR's, Ak's, etc...now? Or wait until after Nov 4? I'm just afraid that after Nov. 4, there might be a 'rush' on those products

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if prices have already started to rise a little.

value of the dollar may also start affecting the cost of imports.