It is more than interesting. It is critical. Scalia, in the most stunning case of judicial activism in recent years, overturned two hundred years of 2A jurisprudence in Heller.
You mean President banned-bump-stocks-and-suggested-taking-away-firearms-with-no-due-process? That one?
You seem to be ignoring a crucial word in that quote, “commercial”.
How do you read “commercial”. Is there such a thing as a non-commercial sale?
Is the class iii firearms registry unconstitutional?
no he didn’t.
I believe so.
Here’s the story on Trump’s due process comment that I mentioned:
“I like taking guns away early,” Trump said. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
It appears your beliefs are in conflict with the law and supreme court rulings…
While I love your Monty Python quote of an answer, would you care to elaborate?
The enumeration of the right to keep handguns in the home for self defense was a re-reading of the Second Amendment, entirely at odds with its history of being applied to protect well ordered militias. Any strict Constitutionalist recognizes that the Second Amendment was a compromise between the Federalist’s desire for a national army and the slaveholding state’s insistence on local militias to protect their property.
While this history is embarrassing, it is hard to argue against.
It won’t pass and the Democrats know it won’t pass! They could have done this when they had complete control of all branches of government and they didn’t!! Voting for it in a D controlled House, knowing that it won’t pass or even get a vote in the R controlled Senate allows Dems the cover to blame Republicans, its the same vicious cycle of lies that too many believe!
Dems campaigned on jobs and healthcare but the first out of the shoot for them is impeachment and gun control! We’ve got jobs galore under the current Administration and Obamacare is a disaster so Dems just pivot to something else to cause resistance and division!
So a serious question here. Suppose this passes and it has zero affect on gun crime. Which we already know it will. What would be the next step for democrats?
Since you believe you can predict the future (you already know there will be no effect on gun crime) you should be able to tell us what the Democrats will do in response. But since you asked me…
I do not know the future, but if the past is any guide, the Democrats will continue to look for ways to reduce the levels of gun violence in this country while the Republicans will take campaign contributions from the NRA in exchange for doing nothing.
2 Likes
They guys walking around at gun shows making private sales are in effect, dealers skirting the law, I have no problem cracking down on them.
Do they seriously think though that I should have to do a background check to sell a gun to a friend or relative who I have known for years?
Is it even practical or practicable for me to do so?
Yes . The future in a nutshell.
The NRA should be commended. Their members are some of the most peaceful gun owners in the world. If not for the NRA, I would not have my CCW permit and would not be allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant with my pistol on my hip.
As far as the next step. There is always a next step. The nature of government is to get more intrusive, not less. Trump managed to slow that trend down. But he won’t be around forever.
Remember the “Wild West”?
True story. You could not leagally carry a gun in old Tombstone or Dodge.
Something to chew on - 2nd amendment restrictions are not new.
Yeah people would shoot up saloons and anything else after a couple swallows of whiskey. Do that now and twenty cops will show up with AR-15’s
CCW holders are not like The Clanton gang. We are cool. Incredibly cool.
Rock on!
10
My beliefs are not in conflict with the Constitution and the explanations by the founders.
