Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Thoughts About Pending Firearm Legislation

Who can know what Congress will do? The important thing is what SCOTUS will do.

Will they issue another landmark Pro-2A decision, or will the come up with something that makes us scratch our heads like "Obamacare is not healthcare, it's really a tax".

Who knows. But I can't see how a $200 registration tax on each magazine or semi-auto could possibly be ruled unconstitutional. It's already accepted practice on suppressors.

SCOTUS has never said to my knowledge that we have the right to defend ourselves with unregistered or untaxed weapons, unfortunately.

Whats your feeling on the banning of internet ammo,component sales and limiting ammo sales to FFL dealers who can do a NICS check? Any chance that will get overturned?

Well said and well thought out....I wish our hand wringers wouldn't use emotion like the ladies.

Remember what Roberts said: It's not his fault Americans chose their leadership and congress poorly. If they make law, he has to assume it's what the people want. kwg

The Republican party today postponed the 'showdown' for another 3 months. Do any of you of sane and logical mind believe the party will stick up for ANYTHING. You also must realize that there will quite probably be at least one Supreme Court Justice appointed. And that is quite probably not going to be a constitutionalist. Just judge the last 2 appointees. The NY law will stick until it is passed thru the courts and by then it will be too late to do anything. As the fine constitutionalist Chief Justice demonstrated in the ObamaCare decision he can play fast and loose with the law also and what has been done or said about that ,absolutely nothing. You are assuming 'the people' will do something but my personal belief is the greatest generation is long gone and the people of today will far from doing anything will go along for the free ride. Let's really face the facts as they are today not what we 'wish' they were.The American people are basically a law abiding people and if the legislature say's it is so and the courts uphold it they follow it. Blindly I might add. You hear a lot of BS on these forums of 'they can't do that to me' or 'I'll hide my guns they'll never get them' but that's exactly what it mostly is --- BS. If you think I've given up you are partially correct, I still pray but that's about all. I have seen little resolve in anyone of note to change my mind. Now cut'er loose.

Everything essential to a guaranteed right is as protected as the right. Under Heller and McDonald, there is a guaranteed right to have ammunition. If there is a right to have ammunition, there is a right to buy ammunition. If there is a right to buy ammunition, the government has the burden of showing that they have an overriding interest in restricting exercise of the right. That is, if they want to ban internet sales, they have to show that internet sales pose some special threat that face to face sales do not. I don't think they can show that.

They might impose a requirement that ammunition and components require a background check. I think that would pass constitutional muster.

Can't imagine the background checks on ammo or components would hold up. The ammunition by itself is useless, the important part is the firearm. Powder... maybe.

Comes back to polling taxes - no burden can be put on rights guaranteed by the Constitution that is more restrictive than absolutely necessary. Since guns are already regulated, it's too burdensome to regulate ammunition and it shows no additional value - it wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings recently, for example.

Online sales is an obvious win, there are far too many scarce cartridges you can't find locally. Everything from 284 Winchester to 250 Savage to 5.6x52R, or even the high grade competition or match grade custom loaded stuff. Enforcing a ban on interstate sales of that would be very burdensome..

Supporting or proposing a 20 rnd mag cap would seem to be political suicide.

Too many bullets for the gun grabbers and a stupid restriction on the 2nd for normal people. A politician would be getting slammed from both sides at 20 rnds. Not to mention that 20rnds would still have a very hard time passing constitutional muster with today�s Supreme Court.

30s are in pretty common usage and I don�t think there is a plausible argument that 30 rnds is more dangerous than 20 rnds. Just my .02.

I wonder if 7 is so stupid that we might have to have another fight at 10. Would way rather win at 10 rnds because that should settle the issue.

A law that allows you to have a 10 rnd mag but you must download it to 7 rnds is a loser at so many levels. Of what possible benefit to society is such a heinous law?

You really DON'T get it do you? SOCIETY doesn't benefit from ANY of these gun laws ,only POLITICIANS. As long as we have them we will continue to get stupid laws and you the people keep electing them. I am 79 years of age ,have voted (what I always thought to be intelligently) and in all those years have seen very few if any NON-politicians run for office. What we are usually asked to pick are really the lesser of the evils presented.I basically remember only one politician who had the strength of his convictions and he said he would only serve a prescribed number of terms and did - that man was J C Watts. I actually can't really remember any more. Sad isn't it. The PEOPLE re-elected Obama it makes little difference why. He told you in his first run exactly what he would do and he has done it ,in spades. And yet the marjority re-elected him. The minority elects very few politicians ever. So exactly WHAT are you going to do about it?????????????????????? Other than cry and make brave remarks.

It helps if you refrain from throwing a wall of text up if you are expecting a response.



I do �get it�.

My point was the 7 rnd limit in a higher capacity magazine is so heinous because it would not even have the effect the Politicians claim they are seeking.

It would reduce the # of rounds available to the law abiding citizen and not reduce the higher capacity magazines available to criminals.

If you actually read my post you would have seen I am not for any mag restriction but I feel the 7 rnd limit in a higher capacity mag is particularly evil.



How do you cry and make brave remarks??????

Actually how long does it take thru the courts to reach the Supreme Court,2,3,years. I actually didn't expect any remarks of any significance. I can see you really don't understand this has no relationship to 'passing muster' of the second ammendment.What they are succeeding in doing is destroying the 2nd ammendment.And they are achieving their purpose. They have for all purposes removed the 'shall not infringe' from it with the last decision of the Supreme Court. And that was from a supposedly conservative knowledgable Justice. Do you actually believe it would ever get to the courts? I wish you luck in your delusions. I'm actually very sorry I can't share them. I would probably be happier if I didn't have to face reality.

Exactly. You may be right about controlling component sales.

zimhunter, most people don't realize that the Second Amendment was, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter in most of the appellate circuits. Most of the country had already gone over the falls, and SCOTUS pulled us back. Also, it has always been the case that that the government can regulate a protected right without infringing it. There are rules about how far they can go, though.

I wouldn't exactly say that SCOTUS pulled us back. They still got it wrong in my opinion. I can't believe how people can still have so much trouble understanding the 2nd amendment. How can "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" be complicated? Again, i have to say, if a politician our judge can't understand that sentence, how can they possibly even begin to hold office and uphold the rest of the Constitution?

Don't count on Heller as a ruling that supports the 2nd Amendment as most of us here believe the 2nd Amendment. Read this excerpt from the Majority Opinion authored by Justice Scalia.
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment�s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so �M-16 rifles and the like� may be banned.

Do you really think the current SCOTUS will protect the 2nd Amendment as most folks here see it? This was the majority opinion. The dissenting opinion curbed the 2nd more strongly. Who will be sitting on SCOTUS should the 2nd Amendment challenge reach them after Obama's appointee(s) is seated?

Laws imposing conditions of commercial sales of arms - could fingerprinting and registration be construed as a condition of sale?
M-16 rifles and the like - AR-15? AK-47 semi-auto?

How much protection does Heller actually provide?

SHALL -- must - in law mandatory
NOT -- in no way
INFRINGED -- cannot encroach upon in any way that violates the
rights
These are plain dictionary definitions that have been in existance since before the constitution. This does not mean they can be regulated,period. They have been of course and the last SCOTUS ruling was just one more corruption of the meaning by a supposedly consertative knowledgeable Justice. When the Chief Justice twists the meaning to satisfy his means (for whatever reason) as he did in the ObamaCare decision it leaves one with little hope the court will be a relief. This is not my reasoning but the reasoning of other Justices and other constitutional scolars. If the constitution can be perverted to do this then it can be perverted to do anything. These are not just my conclusions and the American people being the sheep they are will follow the 'law' as the legislature writes and the SCOTUS rules. I am truly frightened of the outcome this time. The only brightness I see is I am 79 years old and quite probably will not have to live long in it. The other sadness is my great grandchildren will.

another perversion of the Constitution, is that the citizens have been duped into believing that the SCOTUS is the all-knowing, all-deciding last beacon of hope for the country. The Supreme Court was never meant to be like that and it's sad how it has been protrayed as such by both sides of the aisle. They are only one branch of three and yet they seem to have unlimited potential to interpret the Constitution as their ideologies go and there is zero checks and balances.

[ithe sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment�s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so �M-16 rifles and the like� may be banned.[/i]

This could easily be construed as meaning only flintlocks or wheel locks or similar as those were lawfully possessed "home" weapons when the Bill of Rights was written.

At the time Heller was decided, most of the appellate circuits in the country had ruled in accordance with the popular leftist theories that 2A granted only a collective right, or some such thing. Trust me: 2A was dead as a doorknocker in most of the country until Heller. Most people just didn't know how bad the situation really was. You and I may have believed that it protected an individual right, but neither of us would have won any legal cases based on a claim under it.

Your statement that Heller only protects the types of weapons commonly kept at home at the time of 2A's adoption is completely wrong. Heller protects they types of firearms that people commonly hold for lawful purposes. At the end of the opinion, SCOTUS ordered DC to grant Heller a permit for his modern handgun.

No right under the Constitution is absolute. You have freedom of religion, but you cannot practice a religion that includes child sacrifice. You have freedom of speech but lying to defraud others is not permitted. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you can't take them into prisons. The limits that Scalia outlined do not amount to infringement. If you think 2A grants some kind of absolute right, not subject to any restrictions, you are bound to be disappointed.

Harry Reid, Anti-Gun Cadre Introduce �A Bill to Reduce Violence and Protect the Citizens of the United States�

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Nick Leghorn


OK, there�s not much we know about this bill right now. It�s sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee and it�s so new that the usual suspects don�t have the full text available yet. But there are already signs that this thing might just be a publicity stunt that will die a death by a thousand cuts as Republicans attach amendment after amendment until it�s too dirty for anyone to vote for . . .



From The Hill:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday pledged to hold an open amendment vote on a major gun reform bill � a move that could trim the scope of the expansive measures being sought by liberal Democrats and gun-control groups.

The decision could significantly increase a bill�s chances of passage, granting centrist senators on both sides of the aisle more leeway to vote safely on specific aspects of gun control that could otherwise haunt them at the polls in 2014.

This is the same thing that happened to the national reciprocity bill, where the amendments simply made it impossible to vote for by anyone.

If I�m reading the tea leaves correctly, the Democrats are seeing the writing on the wall. With multiple states (now including Georgia, Texas and Montana) introducing legislation that would nullify Federal firearms laws within their states, they see a possible showdown between the Federal and state governments that has been brewing since the Articles of Confederation were signed and they want to avoid it.

So instead, they�re offering a sacrificial cow � legislation that will let them appeal to their pro gun control base to be �doing something� while giving Republicans the win they need to prove that they are fighting for the Second Amendment. A gigantic legislative circle jerk.

And you know what? I�m okay with that. Because it means we�re winning. Even with the strongest possible emotional argument on their side, they can�t pass anything on the Federal level restricting gun rights. So they�re giving up, going for a symbolic gesture rather than anything substantial.