Gun Politics: What will the antis do when they cannot argue the collective right?

[Pendragon]

We would be silly to think that they are going to packup and go home.

Is it possible that the Anti movement could become like the Pro-Life movement?

Staging demonstrations, showing people pictures of children who are all shot up. Maybe a few loonies will firebomb gun stores (loonies with a death wish).

Perhaps the peaceniks will do sit in at gun stores and shows or just walk out onto gun ranges.

Think about the impact of Roe v Wade - and there is not even an ammendment directly supporting abortion rights.

The law plainly allows for abortions right now, and the pro-lifers cannot accept it because they see the law as immoral and causing the death of children. See any similarities?

Of course, if 2ndA rights were like abortion rights, poor people would be recieving federal ammo subsidies to exercise their rights


Right now, the antis are in total freak out mode - I would be suprised if this lasted beyond the weekend. Eventually, they will pull themselves together and devise a new strategy.

They are in a hard position right now. The collective right argument has been taking a beating and is much weaker than it was a month ago and drasticly weaker than it was a year ago (pre Emerson, pre Ashcroft letter).

They have to decide if they are going to try and hold the line with collective rights, or capitualte that piece of ground and come up with other ways to ban guns.

Whatever happens, the idea of the collective right will never be the same unchallenged assumption that it has been for so long.

Think objectively here - what argument do they have left? They are going to have to engage the issue on the grounds of what is a "reasonable restriction" on who owns what kind of gun (us: none, them: all).

This is definately not the high ground and they are much more vulnerable here. Expect even more statistical contortions and more junk studies to scare people and make it so that people who disobey traffic laws are clearly unfit to own firearms, etc.

Any thoughts, any wild speculation?

Whether or not the individual right wins out in the SC, it has at least had it's 15 minutes of fame, and the collective rights theory will never, ever be given the same reverence as it had before.

Expound.

 

[Kaylee]

I reckon they'll keep pushing the collective line, and just say the DOJ statement is simply "more evidence that Ashcroft and his cronies are in the pocket of the NRA and out of touch with reality."

Kinda like now, but louder. Hey, if ya don't got truth on your side, you can at least get volume on your side.

-K

 

[Pendragon]

I think you are right - short term. I am suprised at how much attention this is getting.

The 2ndA is an issue whose time has come.

Terrorism, CCW, crime, personal liberty, domestic violence, gun bans, confiscation.

All of this has been simmering for too long - over the next 5-10 years, we will see much more development in this area.

The banners will keep harping the collective right, but they will look sillier and sillier.

Everyone is looking at the emperor and snickering at his tiny peepee.

When the civil rights movement started to make real progress, there were still people who wanted to stand in the way of that progress. They did not see the writing on the wall, or did not want to see it.

We still have racism, it is just not as overt as it was. Still - there are a few loonies who preach about the white man taking over and crap - its pure madness.

 

[LonWilson]

Is it possible that the Anti movement could become like the Pro-Life movement?

Yes, absolutely. This will especially happen if US v. Haney is heard and his conviction reversed, and NFA34 declared unconstitutional. It'll open up a flurry of lawsuits.

I believe that the anti-gun movement will be somewhat like a combination of the pro-life movement, anti-desegregation movement, and the eco-terror movement. I'll be somewhat funny to see Gray Davis stand in front of a gun store in Sacramento, CA that's accepting deliveries for what used to be Class 3 weapons, and the owners and deliverers being blocked, but escorted by the 101st Airborne (The Army unit that escorted black students for the racial desegegration order) and forced through.

I believe that the anti-gun movement will resort to political and property terrorism, much like the eco-terror movements. I believe that a few in their ranks who are that psycho to do something like that. A declaration of unconstitutionality of the NFA34, and further rollbacks of other federal and state gun control laws by the courts afterwards, would mean that the work of many of the anti-gunners, who've poured their life's work into disarming others, spent tens of thousands of dollars of their money, have lost family and were brainwashed to think that legal gun ownership is at fault, could go that far.

Remember that the worst of the lot often say that the ownership of a firearm would cause a person to go bonkers and blow away their family, their friends, their co-workers, and their schools. They would LOVE to gain headlines that "Former gun control advocate murders 5 kids with a handgun". The anti-gunners would go "SEE!! GUNS TURN PEOPLE INTO KILLERS!!! REPASS ALL GUN CONTROL NOW!!!! DAMN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND DAMN THE SUPREME COURT"

The "right to abortion", despite anyone's belief in so, is airtight constitutionally at the moment. Any states pass abortion laws, and it's likely to get declared unconstitutional. US v. Haney, and other court cases afterwards against the states, would be the only way to make it the same way.

 

[KSFreeman]

Groan. Even if the Second Amendment is yet again ruled to be an individual right, that does not prevent the Supreme Court from upholding gun laws. As I have said, the Supreme Court has various levels of protection to give the Second Amendment.

They will find it to be an individual right, but only give it a "rational basis" level of protection. Thus, if the governmental end seems rational, the law will be upheld despite the BoR. Nothing new in this. The Ohio Supreme Court did this several years ago. The federal Supreme Court will also create a second class of fundamental constitutional rights.

 

[PKAY]

If the "individual right" interpretation (the correct one) does in fact become "settled law" as they say, and the antis lose that particular argument, I believe they will go the way of proposing a new constitutional amendment either banning firearms in private hands (unlikely) or severely restricting private ownership (more likely). This as opposed to trying to repeal the Second Amendment. That effort would surely be met with a resounding defeat.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I believe the extreme leftists are going to proceed full steam ahead on their insane course no matter what the courts rule. They're suffering setbacks, of course, but give up? See the light of reason?

If they were capable of reasonability, they wouldn't be leftists in the oft-cited "first place."

No. Even if they're forced to concede the Second Amendment protects individual rights, they'll continue to pass prohibitions, add taxes and special fees, vote in so-called "safety measures," add more taxes and special fees, demand proof of insurance for firearms owners, make it much more difficult for shooting ranges to stay in business, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All these travesties of American law and justice are already happening at the state level, and will be inflicted on the nation as a whole as soon as they elect--legitimately or through vote fraud: they certainly won't care which--a leftist president and Congress. I'm sure they'd greatly prefer to outlaw ownership of firearms by commoners in one fell swoop, but since they can't get away with it today, they'll settle for doing it on the installment plan, one supposedly "reasonable" so-called "compromise" at a time.

After they've infringed our Second Amendment rights to a truly horrendous degree, they'll launch a constitutional amendment to revoke the Second Amendment. They probably won't do it until firearms owners are a small minority--but they'll definitely try, and might even succeed.

Now you know why I donate to the N.R.A., the N.R.A.-I.L.A., the N.R.A.-P.V.F., the G.O.A., and my state associations--and why, as well, I'm leaving the People's Republic of California this year to return to the United States.

 

[Waitone]

Assuming the second amendment's boat came in (and I hold judgment until later) anti's run the risk in today's political climate of substantial political damage if they continue as in the past. I also think they are smart enough to adapt, improvise, and overcome.

I look for anti's to go to ground and emerge with heavy camoflage. They will convincingly resemble what they are not. They will lay low politically and socially.

Then at some point in the future the pendulum will swing back another direction and someone like HRC will get elected president (severe chill, shakes, gag reflex, hyperventilate, etc). They will then act quickly and furiously to reverse as much of the gains the RKBA previously made.

Just because a law is not what the ruling class wants to see, does not mean they will forget their agenda. It is clearly illegal for Pennsylvania state police to retain gun records yet they do so without punishment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Look at Olson's brief on Haney and Emerson that got them so pissed off... Olson basically says that because the outcome wouldn't be any different whether you used the collective rights intrerpretation in Haney or the individual rights interpretation in Emerson, there is no conflict for the Supreme Court to resolve so it should deny cert.

We are still a long way from reversing this particular incrementalism but at least it is a sign of progress.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

If *I* were an anti-gunner, and the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Second amendment, I'd recruit some obscure but fanatical minions to assasinate one or more of the Justices who voted our way, on the theory that seeing a colleague blown away would motivate the surviving justices to revisit the subject with a change of heart. Maybe send a suicide gunman into the the House or Senate, too, to encourage a really harsh law to provide that test case. Of course, they'd have to have cover identities as pro-gunners arranged, to direct the blowback our way.

Hey, Hitler had is Reichstagg fire, you think the current crop of brownshirts in THIS country can't be equally inventive?

 

[LonWilson]

Agreed. Especially with the implications of the Haney case.

If they rule in our favor, the SCOTUS justices need to be protected at all costs, and so are the politicians. I guarantee you that another Reichstagg will occur if the anti's don't get their way.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I look for anti's to go to ground and emerge with heavy camoflage. They will convincingly resemble what they are not. They will lay low politically and socially.

You are right on here. Chuckie Schumer is already showing us the new behavior. He recently said that he believes the Second Amendment relates to individual rights. Anyone here believe him? If you do, let's talk about a lucrative business deal I have available for you.


In addition, we have seen the left and how viscious they can be when they feel they are losing. Look at Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. An enviromentalist whacked him. Look at our own little left wing mailbox bomber whom we recently caught.

Being on the left does not mean these people are rational, peace loving citizens. Look at the 60's. Look at Minnesotas Sarah Jane Olson (Kathleen Soliah), a left wing police car bomber and bank robber for the "cause". Which side of the political spectrum did the Unabomber park on? They can be just as rabid as abortion clinic bombers.

 

[fix]

Simple. They'll just start telling bald faced lies instead of stretching the truth.

 

[Meowhead]

First of all, I'm not expecting anything earth-shattering.
NFA'34 declared unconstitutional? Yeah, RIGHT. Decades of progressively tighter gun control will NOT be erased by a single stroke of a pen; the best we can expect is the first tentative steps in the right direction. I'm expecting Emerson and Haney to end with courts declaring that yes, the Second does indeed define an individual right...but one subject to reasonable restrictions.

What's a reasonable restriction? That's what the fight will be about in the next few years.

 

[LonWilson]

NFA'34 declared unconstitutional? Yeah, RIGHT. Decades of progressively tighter gun control will NOT be erased by a single stroke of a pen

Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, etc etc etc.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Lon, I don't think anybody denies that left-wing judges are willing to upset decades worth of law with the stroke of a pen. The problem is that in getting the 2nd amendment upheld, we'll be relying on right-wing judges, who have this difficulty remembering that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not precident.

 

[jimpeel]

In areas where open carry is allowed, we need to go to their rallies with placards that state "If the Second Amendment is a "collective right", and the "collective right" is "settled law", why am I able to wear this firearm on my hip?"

Pursuant to the "collective right" theory, no one should be able to have a firearm at all, let alone keep them in their homes. If it truly is "settled law" why do we still have firearms?

 

[labgrade]

That's a great idea, Jim.

If I've got it correct, District court decisions only apply to that district. We need judges appointed that will uphold (& just read) The Constitution - not "interpret, as done (mostly) today. (Brief segue on this - wouldn't be a bad "social experiment" to adhere to The Constitution & then see what societal ills need fixing, rather than the social engineering we have today.)

Ascroft's "new & improved" version of The Second does include that "reasonable restrictions" & "weapons particularly suitable to criminal misuse" clause. Just his interpretation, sure, but if we see anything like this in a SCOTUS decision, we aren't going anywhere.

Too, we could surely get a SCOTUS decision that says, "yup, you pro-gunny-folk were right all along. The Fed has no legal controlling authority whatsoever regards the 2nd, individual right, yada ... & that's why yer states get to do whatever they want to you. We hereby repeal NFA'34" (hammer down)

Most every state has some clause (at the least) which restricts the very same firearms & accessories as does NFA'34 .... welcome to The Machine.

While we're here, If this Administration is so pro-gun, where's the Exectutive Order roll-back of the importation ban, etc.? (just a question ... )

Good stuff, no doubt, & if nothing else, putting the antis on the ropes for a change is well worth the price of admission AND while they're squealing about their ox-goring, they're not doing as much as they could to us. Sauce for the goose & a win-win, in my book.

 

[Pendragon]

well, if the collective right applies, it does not mean that it bans private ownership of guns - it only means the gubmint CAN ban guns - what we own, we own at their pleasure...

 

[LAK]

They will continue to devour us piecemeal. Continue to pursue the avenue of "reasonable restrictions" rubberstamped by the Supreme Court (who remain unchallenged on this by Congress), and endorsed by so many so-called "pro-2nd" people. And they will continue to expand the lists of just who can and who can't "keep" and "bear" (because they are not the same thing) arms.