Congress proposed 2015 guns ban

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by ArmyScout, Dec 25, 2015.

  1. Hoping this is never anything more than a poor use of paper.


  2. Fracman

    Fracman Member

    Good thing congress is out of session until Jan 4 2016
  3. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    It'll go about as well as the last one did, only worse.

    Just a final push for the dims to say "hey, look at us, we tried to do something!"
  4. MXGreg

    MXGreg Supporting Member

    That bill has a lot of different lists in it. The one you should pay the most attention to is the first one that starts.....

  5. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    Threads merged...
  6. elt51932

    elt51932 Member

    Gotcha. Didn't realize it was already posted.
  7. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    Not a problem. That's what we mods get paid the big bucks for.
  8. Hipointer

    Hipointer Member

    On the list of permissible guns, I saw the SKS. Hmmm... Also, it looks like our anti-gun friends have decided that hand guns are "assault weapons" too. If your going to have a true "assault weapons" bill, make sure it sticks to the weapons it supposed to represent.
  9. tjulian

    tjulian Member

    Sks is permissible if it has 10 round fixed magazine.
  10. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    When you have an arbitrary, made up term, you can define what it represents however you want.
  11. histed

    histed Supporting Member

    Assault Rifle, 1775 Style
    April 19, 1775 - first attempted ban. Didn't work out well
  12. sarahsmom

    sarahsmom Supporting Member

    Maybe I should redo my short list and make a lower first priority....
  13. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    It doesn't look like this has much wheels too it. Not likely to go anywhere.

    From what I can tell, the Democrats gun-ban plans are hinging around Judicial work rather than Legislative. "O" keeps yammering about his "phone" and his "pen" but, truthfully, there's really only so much he can do, mostly in the range of making life more irritating for gun owners, but not much further than that. Legislatively, gun bans are still non-starters with about 2/3 of the voting population, including between 1/4 and 1/3 of registered Democrats depending on which "poll" you believe. Support for Legislative gun-ban measures is at an all time low. Slightly less than 1/2 of all voters want it. That holds fairly true across important demographics too with about 48% (ims) of "non-white" voters opposing new gun control laws.

    What that means is that when about 1/2 of "swing voters" and about 1/2 of "black and latino" voters, and even one out of every four of registered Democrat voters oppose new gun control, Democrat Legislators won't touch it with a ten foot poll (at least not now).

    This current Bill is just political grandstanding to tell the gun-ban faithful that Democrats haven't given up on the idea, much like all of the House "we hate Obamacare" votes were never going to go anywhere but were important to tell the base that the haven't given up on getting rid of the still unpopular law.

    Democrats current plan is to attack gun owners in the Courts, to stall in D.C., Chicago, and New York as a method of fighting Heller, hoping that gun rights advocates simply give up or some sort of Democrat miracle occurs, and to continue the full-court anti-gun propaganda press, hoping to sway public opinion.

    The propaganda press is part of why "O," Hildabeast, and the other Democrat runners are trying to downplay ISIS and terrorism. Polls clearly show that these things make people feel less safe, less trustful of government "protection," and more like they need firearms to protect themselves. It's also why CDC anti-gun fluff "studies" are so important to Democrats.

    The Judicial push is also why securing the White House for the Hildabeast, Commie Sanders, or whoever is so important. Besides comparatively minor policy and "pen & phone" actions, the most important thing is Judicial appointments. While it's true that Democrats are salivating at the mere hint of the "big payoff" of appointing another SCOTUS Justice, having 4 more years to load Appellate and Circuit courts is the money making "meter drop" short runs on the Democrat yellow cab.

    So, while I don't see any real legislative actions gaining any traction, I do see the Democrat anti-rights machine focusing on a continued propaganda campaign and on a focused Judicial campaign.

    Peace favor your sword,
  14. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Thanks for nerding it up Kirk...we had it all nice and simple.....;)
  15. SCOTUS directly ruled that the judicial branch has no jurisdiction nor can it review militia laws in Gilligan v. Morgan in 1973. No court or judge can even hear a case on what a state has as it's militia laws.

    That why free states should provide by law for that arming of it's militia with personally owned and held arms. It would over rule any current or future gun control laws the fed gov has.

    As soon as that happens the never ending gun control tail chase would end.

    "It would be difficult to think of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was intended by the Constitution to be left to the political branches directly responsible -- as the Judicial Branch is not -- to the electoral process. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence. The complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments, subject always to civilian control of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability. It is this power of oversight and control of military force by elected representatives and officials which underlies our entire constitutional system;"