Hot off the Presses….
The new gun ban proposal information
- Thread starter WuzzaCBXRider
- Start date
michael parris heuberger
Registered
Hi. Well the 2nd amendment is old and out dated so they should only let people own guns of that time.
You mean all the elected officials that are heavily invested in guns and ammo.
It’s doubtful that it will pass, even now.
Statistical evidence from the FBI and DOJ show the 94 AWB did absolutely nothing to reduce crime or prevent it. But hey the leftists are ‘attempting to make this country safer’ by disarming you while they hide behind gated communities and their own armed guards.
This will definitely stop criminals. I feel safer already.
This will definitely stop criminals. I feel safer already.
How?
Tony Nitrous
Registered
It took me a while to realise that comparisons with the UK / AU etc are pointless. Both places fixed the problem before it went to far. IMO the US is well past that point.
....and then some...
greg3852
Registered
How it won’t pass or how it’s unconstitutional. Supreme Court’s handling of the NY case along with Heller will not allow them to ban firearms in common use. Ar15 most common and popular rifle in America.
Senate republicans know this would mean a death sentence at the polls for them. They wouldn’t even think of crossing the aisle like the house did.
I don’t think it will pass but unconstitutional? The 2A says nothing about the ‘right’ to own an AR anymore than it does a Mac 10 or MIni 14 no matter how popular, both of which I like very much BTW.
greg3852
Registered
Essentially the Supreme Court sent the latest decision back telling them to overturn it and apply the text, history and tradition test to all the gun laws.
You can read more about it in the link, but quick summary is what does the text of the amendment say, what has history and tradition shown us. They carried firearms at the time without restrictions on who etc.
“The THT Test answers this with remarkable simplicity: the Second Amendment’s text provides that “the people” have the “right” to “bear arms,” so anyone among “the people” must be able to “bear arms.” Reassurance that the text means what it says can be found in history and tradition, including the common tradition of carrying arms and the lack of restrictions on the activity throughout the founding era.
Read more here.
You can read more about it in the link, but quick summary is what does the text of the amendment say, what has history and tradition shown us. They carried firearms at the time without restrictions on who etc.
“The THT Test answers this with remarkable simplicity: the Second Amendment’s text provides that “the people” have the “right” to “bear arms,” so anyone among “the people” must be able to “bear arms.” Reassurance that the text means what it says can be found in history and tradition, including the common tradition of carrying arms and the lack of restrictions on the activity throughout the founding era.
Read more here.
greg3852
Registered
The recent ruling was huge. I don’t know how far it’ll reach but I guarantee you “assault weapon” bans won’t pass constitutional scrutiny. AR15 is the most common rifle in use today. It also is responsible for what were at the last stats done by the UCR reporting was around 325 killed by rifles in the us. Rifles were used less than hammers, less than fists to kill people. UCR reporting is done by all us cities and towns to the fbi documenting their crime numbers. More reading below
ii) Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Col- onies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York law at issue. The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by car- rying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 554 U. S., at 627. Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are today “the quintes- sential self-defense weapon.” Id., at 629. Thus, these colonial laws provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today. Pp. 37–42
Supreme Court.
ii) Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Col- onies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York law at issue. The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by car- rying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 554 U. S., at 627. Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are today “the quintes- sential self-defense weapon.” Id., at 629. Thus, these colonial laws provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today. Pp. 37–42
Supreme Court.
History and tradition just might need ‘amending’.
michael parris heuberger
Registered
Hi. I will be so happy when that law passes. We will all be safe and we will be able to walk down any street in any city.l will turn in my guns too. I am sure all the Democrat DA's will give anyone who brakes the law a very harsh talking to. I am sure that will scare the H out of them and they will good from then on. I bet that you do not think that would work.
E Zurcher
Registered
They just sold millions more semi-automatic firearms with a symbolic vote which has little chance of passing the Senate just to advance their political views. It of course will not survive scrutiny in the courts. With hundreds of millions of these types of firearms in the people's hands, and the grandfather clause, this will do absolutely nothing to stem the violence. They know it but will pluck this string until they get their way. Meanwhile, the folks who use these firearms for target, competition, self-defense and hunting will continue to struggle finding affordable ammo and pay out the ass if they do. Oh and if you're Hunter Biden the laws don't apply to you anyway. Mid-terms are coming, be sure to vote for serious, intelligent candidates.
Similar threads
