• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

examiner.com - Anti-gun movement runs out of steam in 2014

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-movement-runs-out-of-steam-2014

SNIP

For gun policy watchers in 2014, the game has become a one-sided affair. Gun rights advocates continue to rack up political and legal victories, while the anti-gun movement “seems to have run out of steam entirely” says John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, and a Virginia gun rights attorney specializing in ‘gun trusts’ and the restoration of gun rights under Virginia and federal law.

2014 looked promising for gun rights from the ‘get-go’ when in February the Federal Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not permit states to require citizens to justify their need to carry guns. The Court struck down California’s “may issue” carry permit scheme, generally following the precedent set by the Seventh Circuit when it struck down the Illinois ban on carrying handguns in 2012.

July 1st then brought clarity to open carry in Kansas when a law took effect to clearly preempt localities from banning open carry.

And then on July 29th, Federal District Judge Frederick J. Sculin Jr. struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns in public. For several days thereafter, citizens legally carried handguns about the District without causing alarm or crime. Judge Sculin later stayed his ruling to allow the District time to enact a reasonable scheme of gun carry regulations. The District’s response so far has been to draft a draconian may-issue permitting scheme like the one struck down by the Ninth Circuit early this year, and, adding insult to injury, ban gun carriers access to public transportation, not even allowing gun owners to sit in the back of the bus.

. . .
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,750
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I would agree entirely except for one thing; I have been through entirely too many hurricanes in my life to think that when things get calm, the storm is over.

Yes, we have won a lot of victories in the firearms rights arena, but now is not the time to relax our vigilance. We must continue to both exercise our rights and bring the harsh light of publicity on those who would infringe on those rights.

It is my firm belief that the critical period is between now and 2016. Those who would disarm us have not given up; never think that they have.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Didn't a federal court look at MD may-issue law and said that the restrictions were OK, also w/NY restrictions.

So .. one has to understand that none of these courts are correct .. that all gun laws are, regardless of what they say, not proper.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,962
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Gun rights advocates continue to rack up political and legal victories, while the anti-gun movement “seems to have run out of steam entirely” says John Pierce...
It's not so much they've run out of steam, which indicates motivation. It's that they're running out of legal options. One court decision after another over the last five years has continued to uphold our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It's always been clear to me, as our Constitution and Amendments weren't written to be an incomprehensible piece of legal mumbo-jumbo. They were written to be easily understood by everyone, regardless of station, or even country. It was meant to be universal, and it is. Thankfully, more courts than not are viewing it as it's written, instead of trying to legislate from the bench, thereby undermining our rights.

Case in point:

2014 looked promising for gun rights from the ‘get-go’ when in February the Federal Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not permit states to require citizens to justify their need to carry guns. The Court struck down California’s “may issue” carry permit scheme, generally following the precedent set by the Seventh Circuit when it struck down the Illinois ban on carrying handguns in 2012.
The rest is just gravy, except for this key piece of information (emphasis mine):

And then on July 29th, Federal District Judge Frederick J. Sculin Jr. struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns in public. For several days thereafter, citizens legally carried handguns about the District without causing alarm or crime.
That which the doomsday naysayers expected never happened. Law-abiding citizens behaved themselves as law-abiding citizens do.

However, not all courts are waking up. In response to the "well, that was a non-event" result of allowing open carry in our nation's capitol, did things progress for the better?

No. They did not. Yet another court judge either stuck his head in the sand or bowed to what history will probably reveal as the overstepping of Obama's presidential power:

Judge Sculin later stayed his ruling to allow the District time to enact a reasonable scheme of gun carry regulations. The District’s response so far has been to draft a draconian may-issue permitting scheme like the one struck down by the Ninth Circuit early this year, and, adding insult to injury, ban gun carriers access to public transportation, not even allowing gun owners to sit in the back of the bus.
Thus, ignorance and gross violation of routine statistical analysis, if not blithering idiocy, continue to prevail in uber-socialist/communist pockets of our justice system.

The question is, how do we route our the lunacy?

The answer is simple: Take a long, hard look at the party of Presidents who keep appointing anti-gun/2A judges, and stop electing people from that party.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
657
Location
Kentucky
We lost the RTKABA with the passage of the first gun regulation. Let's be clear what we are actually doing.

That is defending the ability to be armed with gov permission.

It'll take more than voting or courts to regain the RTKABA. Maybe a convention of states.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,300
Location
Florida
We lost the RTKABA with the passage of the first gun regulation. Let's be clear what we are actually doing.

That is defending the ability to be armed with gov permission.

It'll take more than voting or courts to regain the RTKABA. Maybe a convention of states.
The law is the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land- it says so itself.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
If the headlines are any indication, the anti-gun movement has certainly picked up a lot of steam, lately.
Posting to a four year olde thread w/o one iota of a constructive example “of headlines’ is absolute nonsense and a waste of time don’t ya think Since9?
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
We lost the RTKABA with the passage of the first gun regulation. Let's be clear what we are actually doing.

That is defending the ability to be armed with gov permission.

It'll take more than voting or courts to regain the RTKABA. Maybe a convention of states.
In my opinion and not implying I or anyone should do this, I think it has come to the point that the only way to regain the RTKABA will take the use of the Cartridge Box.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Why is it so many states keep passing (or attempting to pass) legislation that directly contradicts U.S. Supreme Court decisions?
The only reason that the COTUS had ever been effective at all was a general consensus of respect for it from the masses. Today, most people not only have no ideas what it says or why, they think it says the 180 opposite for 180 opposite reasons.

Among other benefits, a Convention of States could renew the necessary knowledge of it and respect for it. Right now, it is just so much paper.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,962
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The only reason that the COTUS...
"COTUS?" What's "COTUS?" I've seen you use that acronym before. Never heard of it.

Since we're talking about the Supreme Court of the United States, not just any court in the United States, perhaps that initial "S" is important after all.

...had ever been effective at all was a general consensus of respect for it from the masses.
History claims otherwise, most notably via the numerous times Congress either reworded legislation to get around prior SCOTUS negation. Prime example: Assault Weapons Ban of 1993. "The author of the ban, Dianne Feinstein D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal." As you may recall, that original proposal, passed around 1990, crafted in response to the Stockton school shooting of 13 children. The original was struck down by SCOTUS because it violated our United States Constitution.

People didn't like their decision, but they respected it. They certainly didn't just ignore it. Instead, the Democrats mounted a serious effort to circumvent the Supreme Court's reasoning by changing the wording of the bill, which subsequently passed in 1994. It was limited to a decade and expired in 2004. Subsequent attempts by the feds to pass subsequent assault weapons bans have failed.

Fast forward to more recent forum-related legislation, most notably Heller and McDonald. Chicago all but ignored it, and was taken to the cleaners by the courts. They keep trying to get around it, but the courts continue to respect SCOTUS' decision.

Today, most people not only have no ideas what it says or why, they think it says the 180 opposite for 180 opposite reasons.
Why would you think that when more than 80% of the U.S. has access to the Internet and Supreme Court opinions can be read online?

For example, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, No. 07-290 is right there in black and white! After about 2 minutes of instruction, people can figure out how to find the correct bound volume to download and read:

  1. Find the case on Wikipedia, Justia, or some other source. Justia lists it as "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)" so it's all there. Wikipedia links to both Justia and the official summary page. At the bottom, under External Links, it also links to the Slip Opinion, which is the print for that particular case.
  2. Note the Case Date and Official Citation (554 U.S. 570)
  3. Go to the U.S. Supreme Court's Bound Volumes page
  4. Download the Volume.
  5. Pull it up in Acrobat Reader

As for the Constitution for the United States of America itself, well, our Library of Congress has that covered, along with all Amendments and the Declaration of Independence.

Among other benefits, a Convention of States could renew the necessary knowledge of it and respect for it. Right now, it is just so much paper.
I'm sorry, Eye95, but I couldn't disagree with you less. The overwhelmingly vast majority of it continues to be properly supported and defended by most law enforcement officers, military officers and enlisted, civil officers including executive, legislative, and judicial, as well as other civil officers whose positions require an oath of office.

Currently, the most flagrant violators include liberal members of Congress and liberal mayors. Liberals in general, however, hold any number of agendas in higher esteem than our Constitution.

But "just so much paper?" Far from it.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,300
Location
Florida
Why would you think that when more than 80% of the U.S. has access to the Internet and Supreme Court opinions can be read online?

For example, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, No. 07-290 is right there in black and white! After about 2 minutes of instruction, people can figure out how to find the correct bound volume to download and read:

  1. Find the case on Wikipedia, Justia, or some other source. Justia lists it as "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)" so it's all there. Wikipedia links to both Justia and the official summary page. At the bottom, under External Links, it also links to the Slip Opinion, which is the print for that particular case.
  2. Note the Case Date and Official Citation (554 U.S. 570)
  3. Go to the U.S. Supreme Court's Bound Volumes page
  4. Download the Volume.
  5. Pull it up in Acrobat Reader
As for the Constitution for the United States of America itself, well, our Library of Congress has that covered, along with all Amendments and the Declaration of Independence.

Becuase the mainstream media, the elected representatives to congress and the senators all decree opposite to what the Constitution says, and the masses blindly "trust" them, just like the masses that say "just do what the police officer says, he's the law" or "show some respect to the police officer, he's got a tough job and just wants to go home at night."

This is why people don't know because they don't care. If they knew, would there be any support for AOC??? no. not at all. but they LOOOVE the idea of socialism. They love the idea of anything that "sounds good" ignorantly missing the fact that the only reason they are in position to contemplate these ideas is due to our Constitutional Republic.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
Our citizens have been led to believe the falsehoods our educators/community & national leaders/religious spokespersons/ad nauseam want our citizens to know as “their” truth.

Prime example...over the last several years national newspeek just began harking Sally Hemings, Thomas Jefferson’s concubine, as ‘one of the family!’

Yesterday, CBS morning show did a blurb on offspring from their union at a gathering at Monticello and so forth.

It was probably the first time many of our citizens ever heard of or thought about this facet of our early history and with minimal leap of faith ~ many paid it no heed as it was perceived as further newspeek noise - - ‘sides kids need bkfast, late for work, gotta shovel the walk, or how am i going to make the payment on the car?

[Yet another historical fact...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)]
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
657
Location
Kentucky
COTUS = Confusion when mentioned in reply to a statement about the Supreme Court of the United States.
COTUS is known to stand for Constitution of the United States on every forum I frequent and has for a long time.

And no most LE, or judges don't honor it or there would be no warantless searches, no no knock warrants, no gun regulations, and no civil forfeiture without even any charges.
 
Top