Will Democrats Declare A National Emergency to Get Rid of Guns?


I never realized the amendment was phrased: “the right to keep arms shall not be infringed”. Sounds like something is missing.

Try again. Unconstitutional.


You should be thanking your POTUS for all he has done for all of us. Or haven’t you noticed? His first obligation is to protect this country. Due to the Demonicrats who have bastardized our Federal Immigration laws along with the 14th Amendment, we have this problem. Or are you unaware we have laws on the books covering everything concerning Immigration? Including Public Law 414.?

The wall is already being built and you better hope that this man continues to protect this country from the hundreds of thousands of poor, mostly men, who if they get in here will be filled with testosterone that will have to be satisfied, who are already causing crimes wherever they land. He has the same Executive Powers all POTUS have had. He is doing what others have done including Obama.

NO the Demonicrats could NOT confiscate our guns without changing the Constitution. They could NOT declare a State of Emergency to do that. They tried that during Katrina and the police and military, rebelled, many of them would not confiscate guns. Because of our Right to Bear Arms.


What was the basis of the nine (9) Emergencies declared by President Obama for foreign countries? They’re still being funded despite having provisions in the Act to be reviewed annually. How many
$Billions are being spent there that do nothing to protect American sovereign borders?


When given the opportunity, they have repeatedly denied cert to hear gun control cases. Now just to be fair, there is a big case from New York that they have agreed to hear this year that would likely fall in gun advocates favor.


So in other words, the ultimate determination of Constitutionality has not been determined on the vast majority of those hundreds and hundreds of cases you claim to have been judged accordingly.


Do you not think constitutionality has been determined when the Supreme Court allows lower court decisions to stand? This should be interesting.


Marcel Marceau had all the best political takes.


No. They do not rule on the lower court decision either way by not taking the case. The Supreme Court doesn’t go out shopping for cases to review, they must be submitted through the appeals process. I would bet you that the vast majority of those cases that you allege upheld gun infringements were never sent to the Supreme Court for their consideration in the first place. Therefore, your statistic is not only unsupported, it is also immaterial.


Not all “emergencies” are created equal.

None of Obama’s emergency declarations appropriated funding against the will of Congress - in fact, none of them were the slightest bit controversial.


If the Court denies cert, they are in effect affirming the lower court’s decision, and making an “ultimate” determination.


Pretty straightforward I thought…but apparently not.


I will bet that every major gun control case in the last 20 years has petitioned for certiorari following the Circuit’s decision.



Damned autocorrect! :confounded:


So weird and hard to believe I am even discussing this point. But yes there have been substantial gun law appeals where the SC has denied cert- essentially green lighting that they are constitutional. Here is an example:

"When Maryland’s restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines were challenged, a federal appeals court rejected the argument that the Second Amendment was violated. The same result — no Second Amendment violation — was reached by a federal appeals court in California when gun rights advocates challenged a ten-day waiting period on firearms purchases. Another federal appeals court rejected a challenge to New Jersey’s requirement that only those with “justifiable need” could carry a concealed weapon in public, finding no conflict with the Second Amendment. In all three cases, the Supreme Court denied requests for review, leaving the lower courts’ rulings in place.


That may be the effect at the moment, but it does not necessarily settle the issue. It is not an ultimate determination until the nine Justices sing.


Thats not how it works.

Laws/executive actions/etc are assumed to be constitutional until they are challenged and found not to be.


Again, denying a request to review does not constitute a ruling either way. The Supreme Court has limited time and resources; they have to reject the majority of requests regardless of the merits of the lower Court decision as a matter of practicality. And they do not have to justify there decision to not take a case to anyone.


I see Pelosi and Schumer’s position as akin to Alec Guinness’ role in “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” For months he went along with building the bridge for the Japanese but in the end he saw that he had been wrong. “What have I done?” I believe is his last line and the audience appreciates that he has come to understand the error of his ways and taken actions to correct them.

Sometimes people change their minds because conditions change. Sometimes they change their minds because they learn things. Some people refuse to change their minds because they are too weak to admit having been mistaken. Since when has changing one’s mind been a bad thing?


Correct. Assumed to be Constitutional … until the nine Justices sing.


Nonsense. Pelosi and Schumer changed their position for one reason and one reason only. Trump.