February 28, 2010
Attorney General Eric Holder states that the administration will seek a permanent “assault weapons” ban and other gon control measures.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.
I will pick apart some of the things that he is attributed as saying in the article:
- The AR15 is now one of the most common rifles in the USA. Part of the Heller decision was that firearms in common use can not be banned. Thus, this would fail the test. The same can probably said for other firearms they seek to ban.
- The infamous “cop killer” bullets – This usually refers to ammunition designed to pierce body armor, which is already illegal to sale to civilians. The only other thing I can think they are referring to is rifle ammunition. Except for SWAT teams, police officers generally don’t wear body armor that can stop rifle ammunition. The reason is simple, it is extremely unlikely that a street cop will face rifle fire. The only other round I can think they would be wanting to ban is 5.7x28mm round. This round is often called a “cop killer” round because it was originally offered in an armor piercing configuration. Before the law changed, they stopped selling the armor piercing version of the round.
- The gun smuggling to Mexico – This has repeatedly been proven to be a red herring. The vast majority of weapons in the drug cartels’ hands are stolen from the Mexican military (these were sold to them legally and with US government support). So, of course they show up as coming from the USA. Their is weapon smuggling. But, it is not the major source of cartel weaponry.
- The “gun show loophole” – There is no loophole for gunshows. This is the right of every day citizens to transfer property between each other without government interference. These transactions are still illegal if the seller knows, or even has reason to suspect, that the buyer can not legally possess the weapon. Any firearms dealer at a gunshow has to still perform background checks on any buyers. Just because they are not in their normal storefront location does not change the law.
- Right now many Second Amendment rights supporters are willing to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt right now. If the administration and/or party leadership manages to strongarm the Democrats in congress into passing this legislation. The next elections will make the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 look mild by comparison. Most likely, unless the Republicans completely screw up their choice for President, the next Presidential election would also go to them. The fact is, the majority of people in this country do now see gun control measures as being useless and strongly object to them. The Democrats who have been elected to Congress recently have largely been put there with understanding that they will not pass gun control. If it passes, it might destro the Democratic party for a long time.
A not inconsequential side note. The companies that produce the assault weapons (and all of the side gear), employ a good number of Americans in well paying jobs. In the current economy, passing a new AWB will hurt the economy.
Also posted in 2nd Amendment, AR15, America, BATFE, Fascism in America, Government, Heller, Obama, President, Tyrrany, civil rights, discrimination, firearms, politics, weapons –
June 18, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that you do not hace constitutional right to DNA testing after conviction. I hate to say it, but they are right. However, since there 3 states that refuse to allow this, I think this is an instance of where we need either a federal law or (better yet) a constitutional amendment. I think that anyone convicted of a crime should have the right to testing that can prove their guilt or innocence. However, there should also be a consequence when the testing proves your guilt. They should have their sentences extended by at least 25% (a 10 year sentence becomes 12.5 years). If they are facing a death sentence, all appeals are ended and they are executed within the next 30 days. My biggest problem with the death penalty is the certainty of guilt. There needs to be hard physical evidence tieing the accused to the crime (not eye-witness testimony).
June 12, 2009
Apparently it comes as a surprise to some people, but not all Hispanics (or women) think alike. Why should race, ethnicity, gender or even class determine one’s point of view on political or legal issues? What’s more, when it comes to Hispanics, there is often not even a single, shared culture that might create a common bond.
….
But for most Hispanics who were born in the U.S., our primary identity is as Americans. In the largest poll of its kind in 2002, nearly 60 percent of third-generation Hispanics used the term “American” as either the only or first term to describe themselves, and 97 percent said they use American to identify themselves at least some of the time.
Still, the media and most politicians seem to think Sotomayor’s ethnic heritage and gender are relevant to the story of her Supreme Court nomination. She’s the first female Hispanic to be named to the highest court in the land, and that must mean something, the thinking goes. But what? Frankly, it was only a matter of time before a Hispanic reached the court. True barriers – meaning disqualifications based on race, ethnicity or gender – simply don’t exist anymore.
As Ms. Chavez says in her column, it’s not about race or gender, it’s about a liberal President, choosing a liberal jurist ro replace a liberal Justice.
February 24, 2009
Liberals Use Heller to Bolster More Than the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in D.C. v. Heller was a constitutional earthquake, breathing life into the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual right to bear arms.
But the aftershock of that decision is beginning to transform the constitutional landscape well beyond gun rights, in ways that have liberals cheering and even joining hands with one-time adversaries like the National Rifle Association.
In a follow-on case pending before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a progressive legal group and liberal law professors including Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin earlier this month joined gun-rights advocates in urging that the right established in Heller, which involved only the District of Columbia, be extended to apply against gun restrictions in the 50 states. The case is McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge to that city’s strict gun control law and, no matter what, the outcome is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
But these academics and the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief in the case, have not suddenly taken up the Second Amendment cause, Charlton Heston-style. Rather, they joined the case to urge the court to adopt a new way of making the rights protected by the federal Constitution apply to the states (a process known as “incorporation”).
Basically, instead of the piecemeal incorporation of rights by taking each one through the courts, this could lead to the entirety of the Bill of Rights being incroporated. Go and read the article. It is great food for thought.
October 16, 2008
I was listening to a podcast today, and the host mentioned something that I very much agree with. We, the second amendment rights community need to do a better job. We have allowed our issue (an individuals right to bear arms) to become intertwined with the issues of religious and cultural conservatives. There are plenty of liberals, non-Christians, and homosexuals who own firearms and believe in an individual right to bear arms. However, they are turned off by the way the issue has become synonymous with the anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, fundamentalist Christian issues. It doesn’t matter whether we agree with these other issues or not. If we want to regain the freedoms we have lost in the past 100 years, we need to separate ourselves from them. Though it is seen as a liberal issue now, racial equality was championed by both conservatives and liberals in the 1960s. No less of gun rights hero than Charlton Heston marched for civil rights in the 1960s. I a dare anyone to call him a liberal. We need to convince candidates across the political spectrum that infringing a the right to bear arms is a losing proposition. We need to convince candidates across the political spectrum that having a strong history of supporting the right bear arms will help them win elections. In a few weeks, the two people who are the most against an individuals right to bear arms in the United States Senate are likely to be placed into the White House. It should have been unthinkable for their party to even nominate them. However, what is in some ways worse, the party that has most often been associated with supporting our right to bear arms nominated someone for President who has at best a lukewarm history of supporting our rights. We need to grow beyond our knee jerk reaction of automatically voting for someone with an R after their name on the ballot. We need to become more active in both parties’ primaries to fight against these kind of candidates even getting nominated.
March 18, 2008
In today’s arguements in the Heller case, I saw something interesting:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: — short of that, just to get your position clear, short of reactivating State militias, on your reading does the Second Amendment have any effect today as a restraint on legislation?
It appears that the USSC does not see the National Guard or the Reserves as being militia as it refers to the Second Amendment. I’ll probably have more comments later.
Transcript of the arguements for the Heller case
