Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the more immediate effects a Clinton Supreme Court will have on the Second Amendment is Concealed Carry. Do you believe that there exists some kind of right, in some form, concealed or open, to carry a gun outside the home for self defense? If Hillary Clinton is elected, you can kiss that right goodbye.
A few months ago, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on the Peruta v. San Diego case that challenges California's very restrictive concealed carry laws which basically make it impossible for an average citizen to get a carry permit in some CA counties. The court, using shoddy logic, reasoning, and legal theories, ( I've read the decision in it's entirety twice ) ruled that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home. And Open Carry is pretty much banned as well, so, in effect, they have ruled there is no right to carry at all.
Gun rights groups are in limbo right now whether or not to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, because as it stands, it would likely be a tie decision, which means the lower court's decision stands, and if Clinton get's to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, there's really no point in appealing it at all.
You are correct, this will be the first thing she will attempt. This or an AWB.
What do you think the odds are that a majority of the justices would radically change an amendment to make it completely ineffective, do you have a history on your side? Even allowing women the right to vote was through amendment yet you believe that a court would rule so radically to make a prior legislation inconsequential.
This is what drives the gun lobby, these outlandish "what if's".
You do realize that the Heller case was decided by one vote don't you ?
So because some criminals get around existing gun laws you would be in favor of no laws at all? we'll have to agree to disagree on that course of action.
Interesting, I never saw in his post anything that alludes to "no laws at all" . Always the same rhetoric that comes from the anti's. And I lost track of how many times pro gun people have come up with ideas, and have said stronger enforcement of our current laws needs to be done...it falls on deaf ears though.
He has a lot of weaknesses. I'd consider the Libertarian party as an alternative if the Republicans don't get their act together, but only if they had a much stronger candidate. Johnson's pledge to pardon the most damaging spy in America's history, Edward Snowden, makes him an absolute non-starter in my book and makes me question his intelligence.
Hey look, he's certainly not the perfect candidate, but who is? I figure take the best you can get, the LP agrees with the most points I feel are important to me. If you overlook the Snowden case, what's most important to you?
Hey look, he's certainly not the perfect candidate, but who is? I figure take the best you can get, the LP agrees with the most points I feel are important to me. If you overlook the Snowden case, what's most important to you?
There's no way I could overlook the Snowden case. It's just too important.
Gary Johnson just seems too kooky for me to take him seriously. I'd like to see a disgruntled Republican step up and win the LP nomination. Rand Paul might have what it takes, but there's the kooky shadow of his father to worry about.
I would really like to see a retired general in the White House, and David Petraeus would have been perfect had he not had his problems with a mistress and classified info. That really disappointed me.
So because some criminals get around existing gun laws you would be in favor of no laws at all? we'll have to agree to disagree on that course of action.
Please show me, (without cherry picking and editing to suit , please) where I said such a thing. You skipped over a lot of other points. Besides, even what you quoted didn't say that criminals got around the law. It said they were stopped from obtaining a gun by the background check., but that no action was ever taken by LE for their attempt to buy a gun.
Thing is , all but one of the instances I witnessed, were for pretty serious offenses. Trafficking in meth, to be specific. The lone case where the guy didn't think he'd have a problem was for a domestic. The conviction was for disturbing the peace, a verbal argument with his wife. But, it fell under a domestic "violence" offense. Yea, there's another idiotic, feel good law, that punished people under a VERY wide set of criteria, but does little to nothing to stop anything. This guy wasn't a criminal at all, or a wife beater. Not even close. But lost his 2a rights because he had an arguement with his wife, that got a little loud, and a neighbor called the cops.
He wasn't arrested, nor was his wife. He just paid the disturbing the peace fine, and that amounted to an admission of guilt to "domestic violence". That law needs to be repealed, and SERIOUSLY overhauled. The instant BC law, I have no issue with. I've actually seen it work, and that's a good thing. But real criminals, who try and buy guns a d get denied under it , well, LE doesn't follow up. So these real criminals are left free to get a gun via illegal means. So, you want to blame lawful gun owners for failure on behalf of the government? On top of that, you want the government to have more power to harass and stigmatize lawful owners and users, with more inane laws, regs, taxes and invasions of privacy.
In a nutshell, its not criminals and their use of firearms you have issue with. Its firearms that bother you, and everyone, lawful or not, who owns and uses them. Yep, you're correct. We must agree, to disagree. The laws are good, as is, minus a few that need to either go away or go away until they are written into a version that makes some sense. Like the domestic violence law. That one is pure lunacy. Lol, now watch, some ha d wringing gun hater will take the latter statement and twist it into saying I hate women and back up abusers. Firearms phobics and anti 2a types can be so predictable. BRC is a wet dream for these people. God help us.....
What do you think the odds are that a majority of the justices would radically change an amendment to make it completely ineffective, do you have a history on your side? Even allowing women the right to vote was through amendment yet you believe that a court would rule so radically to make a prior legislation inconsequential.
This is what drives the gun lobby, these outlandish "what if's".
SO either you have not read this tread, or you are deliberately trying to insure facts don't matter.
Here is a fact, We have already established that what you said above is nonsense.
I have quoted John Paul Stevens's dissent in the Heller decision that for all intense and purposes outlines the lefts position that the second amendment does not extend the right to gun ownership to individuals for personal use... OF ANY KIND
Stevens was joined by 3 members of SCOTUS. One addition to the court that would agree with Stevens and the Second Amendment will no longer apply to individuals. Period.
SO either you have not read this tread, or you are deliberately trying to insure facts don't matter.
Here is a fact, We have already established that what you said above is nonsense.
I have quoted John Paul Stevens's dissent in the Heller decision that for all intense and purposes outlines the lefts position that the second amendment does not extend the right to gun ownership to individuals for personal use... OF ANY KIND
Stevens was joined by 3 members of SCOTUS. One addition to the court that would agree with Stevens and the Second Amendment will no longer apply to individuals. Period.
Facts, they just won't sway an emotionally driven person.
Facts, they just won't sway an emotionally driven person.
with people like goodnight, its not about swaying or facts. goodnight knows the prog position. goodnight knows full well what the prog-left wants where the second amendment is concerned.
what goodnight and others like that want is to muddy the waters to keep people in the dark.
SO either you have not read this tread, or you are deliberately trying to insure facts don't matter.
Here is a fact, We have already established that what you said above is nonsense.
I have quoted John Paul Stevens's dissent in the Heller decision that for all intense and purposes outlines the lefts position that the second amendment does not extend the right to gun ownership to individuals for personal use... OF ANY KIND
Stevens was joined by 3 members of SCOTUS. One addition to the court that would agree with Stevens and the Second Amendment will no longer apply to individuals. Period.
Quite correct. That one of HRCs priorities will be the evisceration off individual right to arms, is a certainty. There will be a resurgence of the argument that the NG is the militia, and that the keeping and bearing of arms does not belong to the PEOPLE, as is stated, but that is a state, collective. "Well regulated" will be twisted to be defined as "state controlled".
A small fact that escapes the anti 2a crowd, is that the NG has not been a state militia ever in history. It is a FEDERAL, regular reserve force. Thus, it states, on their uniforms ,US Army,. The militia cannot be deployed overseas, and is not under federal command. Nor state, for that matter, unless it agrees to be so. It is an irregular, domestic, defense force, and not subject to the auspices of governmental regulation or command. The arms it bears are individually owned and privately obtained. A d access to those arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple, actually, but it doesn't fit Hilarys agenda, or that of her supporters.
Anyone who believes that her ideas on "gun control" have anything to do with stopping criminal misuse of firearms in the name of public safety is, seriously, deluding themselves. Wake up , for the love of it all! This is serious business, a d its not about hunting or any other "sporting purposes". That's a very secondary issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You skipped over a lot of other points. Besides, even what you quoted didn't say that criminals got around the law. It said they were stopped from obtaining a gun by the background check., but that no action was ever taken by LE for their attempt to buy a gun. 
Firearms phobics and anti 2a types can be so predictable. BRC is a wet dream for these people. God help us.....
