Could it come to this? All weapons ban.

[Dick]

But you're also going to have to wait for the case on "incorporation".

I'm at (well beyond, frankly) the limits of my legal knowledge here, but as the original question concerned a ban and confiscation at the Federal level, does the question of incorporation enter into it? In other words, is Heller not binding on the Federal government? If not, what has to happen before it is.?

 

[pdm]

I'm at (well beyond, frankly) the limits of my legal knowledge here, but as the original question concerned a ban and confiscation at the Federal level, does the question of incorporation enter into it? In other words, is Heller not binding on the Federal government? If not, what has to happen before it is.?

Heller is binding on the feds, but not the states (yet) until either the SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd against the states or they voluntarily submit themselves to it.

 

[MetalgodZ]

As gun owners we HAVE to break ourselves from automatically assuming D = Enemy and R = Friend in the gun debate. We have enemies and allies in BOTH parties.

How true.

Sixth Worcester House District
GOAL Rating A
Candidate Geraldo Alicea
Party D
Incumbent Yes
GOAL Endorsed

 

[SKS Ray]

I think an all out ban on ownership would result in many instances that would make Ruby Ridge look like a speeding ticket.

 

[mikem317]

I'm at (well beyond, frankly) the limits of my legal knowledge here, but as the original question concerned a ban and confiscation at the Federal level, does the question of incorporation enter into it? In other words, is Heller not binding on the Federal government? If not, what has to happen before it is.?

I'm not a lawyer either. But as I understand it, and in layman's terms, Heller applies only in a Federal context.

http://michaeldorf.org/2007/03/second-amendment-and-incorporation.html

 

[BOBKATT]

As gun owners we HAVE to break ourselves from automatically assuming D = Enemy and R = Friend in the gun debate. We have enemies and allies in BOTH parties.

Excellent point. Especially now that the majorities are Dem. And it sure doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon. Sorry to say it but we're now up against a race issue from the hispanics and the blacks and the Dem's have been courting them for decades. That population is growing and now it is voting, and it sure isn't voting R. This is something that we have never seen before and I hate to generalize but the cold hard facts are that the great majorities of those people do not in any way shape or form value the conservative agenda.

Attack me for that if you want. But you all know about the 90% + black vote for obama and the something close to 80% hispanic vote for him as well. How about the 2 to 1 vote from the younger crowd for the Dems? Anyone who thinks that the country is going to get more conservative any time soon at all should take another look at things. obama out in '12? I really don't think so. Those demographics are not going to stop voting. They're going to get the sweet taste in their mouth of voting for someone that hands them what they want wether or not they earn it and that's not something that they're going to stop voting for. Kennedy started this decades ago, opening the border to get the democrats competitive in the south.

Point of all this is that we need to recognize the Dems on our side and write them and let them know that they have our support and so on and so forth. Kinda like keeping your enemies closer than your friends eh? Or perhaps recognizing that not all blue bloods are total enemies.

 

[jcr]

I'm not proficient at doing good searches on thomas.loc.gov but here is one old, defunct sample of Rep. Major Owens work (active phrase at end):

--->
104th CONGRESS, 1st Session

H. J. RES. 98
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the meaning of the second amendment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 27, 1995
Mr. OWENS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the meaning of the second amendment.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The right enumerated in the second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be construed as a right of States and not of individuals.'.

<---

 

[FlexibleDogma]

Excellent point. Especially now that the majorities are Dem. And it sure doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon. Sorry to say it but we're now up against a race issue from the hispanics and the blacks and the Dem's have been courting them for decades. That population is growing and now it is voting, and it sure isn't voting R. This is something that we have never seen before and I hate to generalize but the cold hard facts are that the great majorities of those people do not in any way shape or form value the conservative agenda.

Attack me for that if you want. But you all know about the 90% + black vote for obama and the something close to 80% hispanic vote for him as well. How about the 2 to 1 vote from the younger crowd for the Dems? Anyone who thinks that the country is going to get more conservative any time soon at all should take another look at things. obama out in '12? I really don't think so. Those demographics are not going to stop voting. They're going to get the sweet taste in their mouth of voting for someone that hands them what they want wether or not they earn it and that's not something that they're going to stop voting for. Kennedy started this decades ago, opening the border to get the democrats competitive in the south.

Point of all this is that we need to recognize the Dems on our side and write them and let them know that they have our support and so on and so forth. Kinda like keeping your enemies closer than your friends eh? Or perhaps recognizing that not all blue bloods are total enemies.

The OTHER thing worth noting about this election is that president Bush is very unpopular among large portions of the population. When the president is unpopular, his party tends to suffer. If you look back to the 1980 elections, Carter was quite unpopular, and when he lost that election the Democrats also lost control of the Senate. While not an exact mirror of this election, I think parallels can be drawn between that election and this one. I think it will take another election cycle to be able to tell if this is going to be a fundamental shift in the American political landscape or just an outlier, but I wouldn't discount the effect that Bush had this time around.

Personally I think the political trends in America can be summed up by this graph:
http://graphjam.com/2008/10/13/song-chart-memes-the-political-cycle/

(I'm only half-joking about the graph. )

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Well if the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states without incorporation than it would seem the 14th and the 16th Amendments do not as well.

SO if the 14th does not apply no federal laws apply to those living in the individual states as well as the 16th so federal taxes are also invalid to those living in the individual states.

Does this make sense or am I missing something.

Heller is binding on the feds, but not the states (yet) until either the SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd against the states or they voluntarily submit themselves to it.