-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Bye Bye To Assault Weapons Ban???
- Thread starter buketduder
- Start date
The thing is though, Len is right- the regs don't bar ownership, at least not directly, which is part of the reason they were able to be passed to begin with. The pols were able to sell all that crap based on the fact that it didn't "ban" anything.
There are bigger fish to fry with this victory anyways- in terms of things a hell of a lot more meaningful than some handgun compliance crap. I'd rather wait to see what happens in CA first... there is a lot to learn from a legal war there. (Mainly because the moonbattery is equal, if not greater, and we'll already know how they will try to squeak out of it. )
-Mike
Bill Nance
Banned
Making a case that the current licensing scheme is a defacto ban is, in my opinion, not going to fly before ANY federal appellate court.
I expect FIDs will become obsolete soon to be replaced with shall-issue class Bs. That's the measure Heller set. To argue a licensing scheme is so broad and cumbersome that it effectively prevents large numbers of people from enjoying a right is a really high bar and as I said, the laws in Mass. are a lot less awful than in some other places. If there is any substantial change to Mass laws under upcoming cases I would be very surprised.
Even the supreme court hasn't really made the intellectual jump that the 2A is as inviolable as the 1st. Frankly I don't expect that to change any time soon. Remember that even among gun owners, many things taken as obvious re gun control on this board are considered on the extreme side. If we can't even convince all the gun owners, convincing federal courts to overturn "reasonable restrictions" as being too onerous isn't likely any time in the near future.
The bottom line, as I say all the time, is getting more people into shooting.
The population is getting more and more urbanized and is going to get even more so over time. Urbanization is a far more deadly enemy of the 2A than the Brady Bunch could ever hope to be. The only way to offset that is getting everyone we possibly can who ISN'T a shooter or even a conservative, out to the range to enjoy the sport, which gives us a chance at one-on-one lobbying. That's the well-proven most effective way to change people's minds. Do that and watch the gun laws go down to legislative defeat. Fail to do it, and watch the 2A get repealed sometime down the line.
I expect FIDs will become obsolete soon to be replaced with shall-issue class Bs. That's the measure Heller set. To argue a licensing scheme is so broad and cumbersome that it effectively prevents large numbers of people from enjoying a right is a really high bar and as I said, the laws in Mass. are a lot less awful than in some other places. If there is any substantial change to Mass laws under upcoming cases I would be very surprised.
Even the supreme court hasn't really made the intellectual jump that the 2A is as inviolable as the 1st. Frankly I don't expect that to change any time soon. Remember that even among gun owners, many things taken as obvious re gun control on this board are considered on the extreme side. If we can't even convince all the gun owners, convincing federal courts to overturn "reasonable restrictions" as being too onerous isn't likely any time in the near future.
The bottom line, as I say all the time, is getting more people into shooting.
The population is getting more and more urbanized and is going to get even more so over time. Urbanization is a far more deadly enemy of the 2A than the Brady Bunch could ever hope to be. The only way to offset that is getting everyone we possibly can who ISN'T a shooter or even a conservative, out to the range to enjoy the sport, which gives us a chance at one-on-one lobbying. That's the well-proven most effective way to change people's minds. Do that and watch the gun laws go down to legislative defeat. Fail to do it, and watch the 2A get repealed sometime down the line.
In MA we have no choice Bill. The legislature will not do anything unless their hand is forced. The only way to do this is with the courts- whether by actual legal action or a very large implied threat of legal action. The only way legislation would get passed is if the legislature feels threatened-. EG- get them to believe the "devil" they know (something like H.2259, etc) is a lot better than the devil they don't know (a federal court blowing away one of their precious laws and declaring it completely invalid). It all depends on how virulent they are. It remains to be seen if they will learn anything from DC and Chicago's recalcitrance. I doubt they will- the veins of idiocy and inherent dumbness in the anti gun realm run very deep.
-Mike
It sounds like any perceived violation of our 2A rights, even at a local level, would mean that it's now a civil rights violation and immediately becomes a Federal case to be tried in Federal Court.
That's a big benefit to us as we now do not have to deal with the Commie Mass Courts and their belief system.
But, what do I know.........IANAL....and probably wrong.
That's a big benefit to us as we now do not have to deal with the Commie Mass Courts and their belief system.
But, what do I know.........IANAL....and probably wrong.
That's the basic idea, but much to the lawyers delight the devil is in the details...
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
"Hold on baby Jesus, it's about to get bumpy..." -Ricky Bobby
I believe 3 things in CT need to be looked at...The AWB, The requirement for a permit to simply purchase a pistol, and any kind of waiting period. Obviously depending on the outcome of the elections this year, the makeup of the legislature may change. I am in contact with my Rep/Senator and plan to contact members of the Judiciary Committee. I will let you know any responses I get back..
Last edited:
Bill Nance
Banned
Other than making FIDs into shall-issue class-Bs, explain how Heller even remotely invalidates any MA law.
Until gun-owners are looked upon by the general population here as anything other than anachronisms or worse, nuts, you're not getting anywhere with the legislature here. That's the point of getting people out to the range. Ignorance breeds fear and fear always wants government intervention to make the perceived "threat" go away. Even many people who genuinely think they support the 2A gun-owners many of them, don't think of 2A as about anything other than hunting or maybe a shotgun under the bed.
But the courts aren't going to offer much relief either. A few small, incremental changes, but for the most part the feds are going to leave this to the states. Heller and McDonald squeaked past on a party-line vote and both of those were very conservative (small c) rulings. They didn't make any radical changes. Telling states that their restrictions, which they will claim is all about crime control, don't meet constitutional standards is a much, MUCH higher bar and I think very unlikely to happen except in the most egregious cases.
It's going to be a long, uphill battle in Mass and I don't expect to see any giant changes in my lifetime. But if there are any, it will be because educated voters insist on it. If gun rights was a winning issue half the "moonbats" in office would change their positions. It's not. It's a sure-fire way to lose in most political races here, especially Democratic primaries. Until you reach those ignorant voters, it's a hopeless battle. And from what I see on this site and others, outreach is the one thing we really SUCK at. Unless and until 2A advocates stop spending all their time preaching to the choir or making 2A into a partisan political issue, we're going to see very little progress. When people see this as a genuine civil rights issue instead of a conservative/GOP political issue, we'll have a much easier time.
So far we seem to be really good at firing up people who already agree with us. But that's not going to help.
richc
NES Member
A couple thoughts:
- Will we still need FID's for the under 21 crowd?
- I've never understood what handguns are allowed with an LTC-B. I understand the notion of high-cap, but in general can't all semi-auto handguns carry more than 10 rounds with the proper magazine? Does that then mean that someone with an LTC-B is unable to purchase a semi-auto handgun? if so, is that a reasonable restriction under McDonald?
Just thinking out loud.
Rich
- Will we still need FID's for the under 21 crowd?
- I've never understood what handguns are allowed with an LTC-B. I understand the notion of high-cap, but in general can't all semi-auto handguns carry more than 10 rounds with the proper magazine? Does that then mean that someone with an LTC-B is unable to purchase a semi-auto handgun? if so, is that a reasonable restriction under McDonald?
Just thinking out loud.
Rich
The under 21 crowd will still face some degree of discrimination even in the best case as the Feds already trample on them with handgun purchasing (if not possession 18 or over).
So, I would not be surprised, particularly as FID is already "shall issue". If our tiered licensing survives, I would not be surprised if the under 21 crowd in this state finds themselves with a "less equal" license.
Federal law says you can own (possess) a handgun in all states at age 18, but you cannot buy one or buy handgun ammo until you attain age 21. Some states have laws making possession of a handgun illegal until age 21.
Now that I think about, the federal law might not explicitly state you can own a handgun at age 18, it just says you can buy it til 21, therefore it is inferred that you can own it at age 18 since it doesn't say you cannot.
That's always been a problem. Even if you know what is allowed under an LTCB, it's unlikely that you will find an FFL that does as well. This is one of the reasons why many Chiefs will simply issue restricted A's instead of B-ramming.
IIRC revolvers were allowed in DC but that wasn't considered good enough by SCOTUS under Heller. If our licensing structure changes it will likely result in something along the lines of shall issue LTCA's with possible restrictions.
Similar threads
