Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns

#1
VolnJC

VolnJC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
26,989
Likes
36,979
#1
#3
#3
She can do whatever she wants. Americans will keep their guns with or without respect to laws / orders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
She may be able to take guns away from some, but there is a 0% chance she or anyone will have success taking guns from people in the south
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
I see thread title.

I read link.

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
Don't believe anything you read for the next month. Every article and speech is agenda driven. Hillary needs to seem gun tough to that part of the liberal base nothing more.
 
#11
#11
McDad said:
This post is evidence you're much wiser than me. I forget this is a public forum easily scanned and traced by our own spy agencies.
Click to expand...

WUT? They can do that? Even if they could our government would never do suck a thing.
 
#15
#15
Grand Vol said:
Here you go for a more detailed link to said stance:

Leaked Hillary Clinton Audio: 'We've Got to Go After' Supreme Court on Second Amendment
Click to expand...


You do realize how this works, right?

You keep citing Heller as the basis for the contention that the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is meaningless. That based on Heller, the right is individual, not tied to status in a militia.

See, Supreme Court cases are not carved in stone. The law changes. See e.g. Dred Scott, or any number of examples of the Court reversing itself.

It is entirely possible that the Court, with a different make up, will alter or reverse the holding in Heller. It is most likely that it would adhere to Heller, but reasonably determine that the right described by Heller can nonetheless be regulated, i.e. background checks and what not.

So, just because Heller is currently the law, and you overrreach as to its consequences, means neither that Heller will be good law in 10 years, or that it will not have been modified to allow some better management of the gun situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
You do realize how this works, right?

You keep citing Heller as the basis for the contention that the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is meaningless. That based on Heller, the right is individual, not tied to status in a militia.

See, Supreme Court cases are not carved in stone. The law changes. See e.g. Dred Scott, or any number of examples of the Court reversing itself.

It is entirely possible that the Court, with a different make up, will alter or reverse the holding in Heller. It is most likely that it would adhere to Heller, but reasonably determine that the right described by Heller can nonetheless be regulated, i.e. background checks and what not.

So, just because Heller is currently the law, and you overrreach as to its consequences, means neither that Heller will be good law in 10 years, or that it will not have been modified to allow some better management of the gun situation.
Click to expand...

I see you never read the Heller decision...
 
#17
#17
Grand Vol said:
I see you never read the Heller decision...
Click to expand...


I did, though I confess I don't remember the exact reasoning, just the conclusion: that the right is individual, not tied to status with a militia.

I double checked. Here is the cert question granted:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
Click to expand...
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
I did, though I confess I don't remember the exact reasoning, just the conclusion: that the right is individual, not tied to status with a militia.

I double checked. Here is the cert question granted:
Click to expand...

It also determined there could be "reasonable" restrictions on the 2A.

However, McDonald changed all that as well. You might do yourself a favor and actually research the topic before committing to a post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#20
#20
I don't see how this is still am issue, Obama took all our guns in 2008 and again in 2012.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
I did, though I confess I don't remember the exact reasoning, just the conclusion: that the right is individual, not tied to status with a militia.

I double checked. Here is the cert question granted:
Click to expand...

Hits the high points and the whole thing is absurdly simple. There's certainly room, particularly at the state level, for playing with aspects of implementation (Laws already vary wildly between states) but the idea that bearing arms is meant to be an individual one is pretty easy to justify.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
 
#22
#22
hndog609 said:
Hits the high points and the whole thing is absurdly simple. There's certainly room, particularly at the state level, for playing with aspects of implementation (Laws already vary wildly between states) but the idea that bearing arms is meant to be an individual one is pretty easy to justify.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Click to expand...


Sure it is.

But so is the notion of the context of the language of the amendment.

The issue is not whether an individual should have the right to possess a firearm, safely stored in the home, for self-protection. The issues are: 1) how do we prevent people who should not or cannot have guns from getting them; and 2) how do we incentivize people to keep careful account of the safety with which they store guns.

This is a true story: I was in federal court in Tampa last Friday for a motion hearing, nothing remarkable. Ahead of us was a sentencing. The defendant had admitted to selling AK-47s on the street, in cahoots with a well known gun trafficker, for $700 a pop. And he was a convicted felon.

Said he did it to raise money to buy his girlfriend and their kids Christmas presents. Had a letter from his boss at Applebee's about what a good employee he was.

Guidelines called for 41 months to around 8 years. Judge gave him 36 months, and is allowing him to turn himself in to federal prison a month from now.

Convicted felon. Not only possessing but selling AK-47s on the street. Three years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
Sure it is.

But so is the notion of the context of the language of the amendment.

The issue is not whether an individual should have the right to possess a firearm, safely stored in the home, for self-protection. The issues are: 1) how do we prevent people who should not or cannot have guns from getting them; and 2) how do we incentivize people to keep careful account of the safety with which they store guns.

This is a true story: I was in federal court in Tampa last Friday for a motion hearing, nothing remarkable. Ahead of us was a sentencing. The defendant had admitted to selling AK-47s on the street, in cahoots with a well known gun trafficker, for $700 a pop. And he was a convicted felon.

Said he did it to raise money to buy his girlfriend and their kids Christmas presents. Had a letter from his boss at Applebee's about what a good employee he was.

Guidelines called for 41 months to around 8 years. Judge gave him 36 months, and is allowing him to turn himself in to federal prison a month from now.

Convicted felon. Not only possessing but selling AK-47s on the street. Three years.
Click to expand...

I'm on record as a hard liner on firearm crime. By that I mean things involving gun usage that you said (probably correctly) would likely be impossible to implement. I'm also on record as saying I think this fascination with the inanimate object is flatly counterproductive to dealing with actual violence. Without getting too verbose I think many, particularly in politics, find it a whole hell of a lot easier to try to address things instead of people. (really cracking down on gun crime in Chicago would almost certainly bring about cries of racism for instance)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
Sure it is.

But so is the notion of the context of the language of the amendment.

The issue is not whether an individual should have the right to possess a firearm, safely stored in the home, for self-protection. The issues are: 1) how do we prevent people who should not or cannot have guns from getting them; and 2) how do we incentivize people to keep careful account of the safety with which they store guns.

This is a true story: I was in federal court in Tampa last Friday for a motion hearing, nothing remarkable. Ahead of us was a sentencing. The defendant had admitted to selling AK-47s on the street, in cahoots with a well known gun trafficker, for $700 a pop. And he was a convicted felon.

Said he did it to raise money to buy his girlfriend and their kids Christmas presents. Had a letter from his boss at Applebee's about what a good employee he was.

Guidelines called for 41 months to around 8 years. Judge gave him 36 months, and is allowing him to turn himself in to federal prison a month from now.

Convicted felon. Not only possessing but selling AK-47s on the street. Three years.
Click to expand...

#2 is silly. My incentive to not have my stuff stolen is that I get to keep my stuff. Locks keep honest people out. Obtaining my property by breaking and entering and theft is not my fault. And if I took you car from your garage and ran over a bunch of kids with it no one would look to you as the cause of the incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top