“The U.S. Supreme Court dealt Second Amendment supporters a major defeat by refusing to hear an appeal filed by San Francisco gun owners seeking to overturn that city’s requirement that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be ‘stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.'” reason.com wrote earlier this month. “The action by the Court leaves that gun control ordinance on the books.” Justices Thomas and Scalia wrote a stirring dissent (available here). Regardless, the denial of cert highlights a serious problem . . .
compliance with the Constitution is voluntary. Politicians who don’t honor the Constitution may ignore it. They can deny citizens their rights for decades – unless forced to obey the law by the courts. Even then, politicians may foot-drag, delay and obfuscate. Administration officials may go their own way, working to drag Americans down the path of civilian disarmament.
In the aftermath of the Charleston church massacre, don’t be surprised if the Obama administration puts its foot down on the gun control gas pedal. Consider this from an article published last month in The Hill . . .
The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.
The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.”
The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.
Needless to say, the DOJ’s selling these proposals as increasing public safety. “Doing something” about “gun violence.” The hidden agenda: disarming the law abiding.
The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is looking to revive a rule proposed way back in 1998 that would block domestic abusers from owning guns.
As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.
The ATF plans to finalize the rule by November, according to the Unified Agenda.
In the 1990s, many states adopted mandatory arrest laws, requiring police officers to arrest the “primary aggressor” whenever a domestic violence call was made. Under these well-intentioned laws, people who caused no injury to others found themselves jailed, their reputations and careers damaged for arguments in moments of stress. Most such laws still exist. The mere idea that a citizen can lose a fundamental right for a misdemeanor conviction is likewise abhorrent.
The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms, which is attracting even more criticism from gun rights groups.
The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,’ [Gun Owners of America Counsel, Michael] Hammond argued.
Few disagree that arms should be denied the truly dangerous. The problem: the proposals of anti-liberty activists would sweep-up the law-abiding in a very large net, while doing little or nothing to inconvenience the dangerous. Some sixty million Americans take anti-depressants. Should they all lose their gun rights?
The fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive is spearheading this effort is deeply disconcerting. Setting aside the Bureau’s long history of corruption and extra-legal “enforcement” efforts, the recent decision to team-up with the NYPD to go after “gun crime” indicates the ATF’s desire to expand both their reach and power.
Combine that with the Department of Justice’s “supervision” of rogue police departments; the federalization of policing recently welcomed by Reverend Al Sharpton. If Al and his supporters get their way, there would be no Denver Police Department, only the Federal Police, Denver division.
More and more, defenders of liberty are also defenders of the Second Amendment. It has always been so, by design. If America is to survive, we dare never be complacent. Those who would exploit raw emotion to steal liberty surely aren’t.
Do we have anything concrete? I think this is one of the few times to take a wait and see approach then when they do make a move we counter with everything. also where is this talk of high powered pistols coming from that’s extremely disconcerting
I figure they’re talking about the AR and AK style pistols with their extremely powerful 30 round clipazines.
We’ll to be fair, AK and AR pistols have been used in numerous mass shootings and crimes because they’re so small and easily concealed. Oh wait a minute……
“Oh wait a minute …”
What, they have NOT been used in many … oh, never mind!
No, there is nothing specific, but a world of speculation, Two other forums I visit have shut down discussion until specific proposals are made.
Wait and see?… wait and see? You must not live in california where your rifle is about as useless as a baseball bat with a ten round magazine and a bullet button. That’s because we waited to see.
There is nothing more important for us PotG to do than to educate the public in the importance of civilian guns.
The public doesn’t care whether we enjoy collecting guns, shooting targets or maintaining game populations and their habitats. Nor, frankly, do they care about Constitutional rights of others which they don’t care to exercise themselves. As the 2A, they care only about what civilian guns do to promote/detract from their personal safety.
When the voters recognize that they, and their loved ones, are vulnerable to violence from criminals, crazies, terrorists and the tyranny of their own governments’ agents then – and only then – will they support the RKBA. This recognition will create a necessary sentiment. A decision to exercise the RKBA will create the sufficient interest. Thereupon – and only on these conditions – will the 2A be safe from the tyranny of our Federal, State and municipal governments.
Spot on Mark, spot on.
There is nothing more important for us PotG to do than to educate the public in the importance of civilian guns.
No. There is something more important for the POTG to do. They ought to first and foremost make sure that they have sufficient arms to fight against all enemies, foreign and domestic. After that they can choose to do as you suggest. (Which I, for the most part, agree is important.)
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The POTG first ought to do what is necessary for the security of a free state. They need to be as trained and armed as they can be and choose to be. All other things won’t matter in the end if there isn’t a strong deterrent to government encroachment with the means and will to meet that encroachment if necessary.
What John posted is the only reason we still have a Second Amendment.
They established registries and went door to door in “free” countries like Canada and the UK. The only thing that stops it in the US is the knowledge of how the citizenry would respond.
Just like the more perceptive among the Japanese high command in World War 2, the political class is reluctant to awaken a sleeping giant.
What about hammer violence, car violence, baseball bat violence….
Don’t forget pillow violence, five-gallon bucket violence, and gravity violence!
Beats me…stock up!
They will most likely fail, however, it will start a panic run on pistol AR/AKs. So if you want one, get one now before they triple in price and the only guy that’s selling them is the weirdo in the van that keeps repeating “get em befo’ the BAN does!”
Good think that they are already banned where I live!
I always thought they were kind of dumb, but now that I cannot have one, I kind of want one.
Filed under the heading (and we all are prone to it)… Don’t know what you got until it’s gone.
Me thinks much hinges on clear definition of “arms” and what is “bear”….seems opposing parties apply definitions which appease them most. In this case, “bear” appears to be kept locked in your home? Is “arms” whatever popo has, whatever we can carry on our person? My head hurts.
On the basis they are seeing a psychologist? Clinical psychology isn’t even applied successfully enough to be considered ‘science’, mostly because the track record at predicting or altering behavior using ‘psychology’ is beyond bad to the point of being absurd. They aren’t even allowed to handle prescription drugs and they get to disarm you? Get f\/<k3D!
“Clinical psychology isn’t even applied successfully enough to be considered ‘science’”
Depends on the area. Some problems respond very well to behavioral therapy (including phobias). These treatments are based on extensive empirical data on animal and human behavior. In general, they involve altering the stimulus-response cycle. Other issues only respond to drugs (which psychologists cannot prescribe). What doesn’t work very well are the various forms of psychoanalysis (research suggests that such treatments are no more effective than talking to a sympathetic friend, priest, rabi, family member, etc.) Unsurprisingly, treatments that tend to work are based on hard data, and psychotherapy and related techniques generally are not based on empirical data.
An Unconstitutional Law mandated by a Court does not supersede my God Given Right to defend myself and my family as I see fit. The Constitution does not “Grant” me a damn thingI already endowed by my Creator. They want to pick and choose, nullify and nitpick that? Go right ahead.
I choose not to comply. You want a dangerous reputation? Start reading and quoting the American Founders.
Are we at the point when “Not Backing Up One More F-cking Inch” applies?
My firearms killed, slaughtered, mowed down, absolutely NO ONE!
I’ll not register them, stand in line to do so, have any LEO conduct any more infringement, and raise a hearty middle finger to the establishment that wants me to do so.
Sorry, I choose not to play.
Aye.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
An oldie but a goodie. To bad people couldn’t be so reasonable as to find a solution to tyranny other than wargames.
Tyranny is somewhat like a fire. You put it out when you first see it because it has potential to be much harder to fight and can cause more death/destruction when it’s bigger. When it comes to tyranny, kicking the can down the road is rarely a good idea. That’s one of the reasons I don’t put much hope in incremental restoration at this stage.
Long ago, the People ignored the smoke and then they ignored the small flames. It’s no surprise that people are getting burned today. It has become a raging inferno and much harder to fight.
Only you can prevent tyranny. Only you.
At the end of the day the 2nd is important while at the same time the work of politicians giving me “permission” to defend myself and my family. I do not want, need, require or accept the idea that my right and responsibility to “keep and bear ” is granted to me by a piece of paper or a god or some politician.
Other means by which people die are being ignored. It appears these deaths have become so frequent and commonplace we openly accept them. The 2A attacks therefore have little to do with deaths and safety, it’s a tangible prop for political gain and feelings of increased power with control. Bias has become so prolific we often have the impression there is a mass continental war occurring. Look at the hysteria generated from a piece of cloth, the Confederate battle flag. The issue is human behavior and blaming bad behavior on inanimate objects is as irresponsible as it gets.
“If Al and his supporters get their way, there would be no Denver Police Department, only the Federal Police, Denver division.”
(Shudder…)
I recently tried pointing out to an acquaintance the odd juxtaposition of his decrying police brutality while simultaneously arguing for a federal takeover of local police and a repeal of the Second Amendment. He didn’t get it…I gave up trying to convince him.
Good read, Mike! Thank you. That is one helluva list of credentials, BTW. Nice to see I’m not the only musician who is pro-2A, as the person I refer to above is a musician who is clearly not.
no more odd than the people who moan about police brutality will also argue that only the police should have guns
The federal government can go straight to hell. Their proposed regulations are unconstitutional and are the acts of a tyrant.
Maybe I’ll make me a Makarov – based 5 barrel gatling – handgun with a 50 round dropazine…
If only. I would ask for one every xmas, birthday and anniversary til people got tired of me and just gave it to me.
“…compliance with the Constitution is voluntary. Politicians who don’t honor the Constitution may ignore it.”
The same could be said of ordinary citizens and bad laws.
Actually, the Army taught me I had a DUTY to disobey an unlawful order. Which would definitely be an order that forced me to disobey my oath to defend the Constitution (not the current Administrative, Legislative, or Judicial branch) from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It’s not a choice. Every citizen has an OBLIGATION to disobey unlawful directives, regardless of where they come from.
Just how are they going to enforce this for the stable, non-offenders?
Are they going to perform inspections of some sort? Without a search warrant?
Like hell.
If Obama’s admin does something like this, I doubt very much that they will do general sweeps. At least at first, I bet it is only enforced against people who oppose the leftist agenda. And perhaps vets with combat training/experience.
Cool. Like that hero to all Republicans, Carl Rove, said a few days ago, the 2nd probably needs to be repealed anyway. And judging by the hatred coming from ammosexual keyboards lately the sooner the better.
Someone needs to start destroying the libtard agenda by using their own people against them:
1) Start a campaign to show how dangerous the police are, question why only the police should be armed
2) Make black gun ownership popular throughout media
3) Anti-gunners become viewed as the racist retards they’ve always (secretly) been
4) Profit
It has already been happening on the ground for a while in some areas (except the disarming police part). Those have been underlying themes at protests I’ve attended. 1) The idea that overzealous and/or out of control officers who face little to no accountability pose a real danger. 2) Everyone is encouraged to carry and minorities are especially celebrated because they tend to be under-represented at RKBA events and as regular OCers. 3) Progressives are special little snowflakes; emphasis on flake. 4) Increased awareness of individual Liberty and the actual exercising of rights diminishes the influence and raw power of statism. True Liberty is contagious.
Mental health is the avenue to gun confiscation..
Communists in Eastern Europe disarmed the people prior to WWII
thru mental health confiscation..
American Psychiatric Asso: Half of Americans are mentally ill..
Be careful what you ask for…………
I suggest a new DOJ rule making it illegal for the mentally ill to become ATF agents.
The Supreme Court and Obama can kiss my a??. Who do these Communist think they are. I will defend myself and family and NEVER surrender my firearms to anybody
Comments are closed.