Will our 2nd Amendment rights survive....

[socal2310]

Hopyard,

There hasn't been enough time for anything to happen. How long did it take Heller to get to the Supreme Court? There are literally dozens of lawsuits in California waiting to be filed, pending the outcome of Nordyke vs. King in the 9th circuit court of appeals.

I'm also not as pessimistic regarding gun rights as some others since us gun lovers are reproducing faster than the gun banners. My six kids are homeschooled and don't find guns in any way remarkable, nor do any of the kids in any of the other large families we know.

We ought not to become complacent, but I think gun control is going to be a very hard sell at any level of government. Defensive gun use is getting more positive press than at any time I can remember in my lifetime and the Brady Bunch et al look like asses any time they are confronted with a successful self defense story. If they weren't trying to disarm me, I'd feel sorry for them.

Ryan

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SelfDefense]

How is that?

The Constitution and all the Amendments apply only to the Federal government. The states are sovereign.

See Barron v. Baltimore, Adamson v. California and the Cruikshank Supreme Court opinions.

Thanks, Hopyard! Look what you've done now.

[socal2310]

Arguing that the BOR doesn't apply to the states won't hold any water since the War for Southern Independence was lost and the fourteenth amendment passed.

Current trends in American jurisprudence simply can't justify failing to incorporate the second amendment. The discussion regarding Cruikshank in Heller practically begged someone to send them a case that would permit them to do so.

Ryan

Incidentally, I believe an honest reading of the Constitution would lead one to believe that the first eight amendments define critical rights that exist prior to and above any government - God given rights so to speak. The ninth amendment indicates that the prior list isn't exhaustive and the tenth amendment is the real limit to Federal Power.

Since the ninth and tenth amendments are dead letters in American jurisprudence, I'll take incorporation thank you very much.

[HotGuns]

So, you think Obama and the Executive branch can repeal a Constitutional Amendment? Interesting. My reading of the Constitution is that the Executive branch has nothing to do with the Amendment process. It is Congress and the states.

That is correct.

With our significant gains in gun rights, concealed carry laws and the 'Castle Doctrine', it is impossible to believe that 3/4 of the states will overturn their own laws. Ya think? Is that your argument?

First of all, I am not arguing about anything. You are assuming again.

I do think that the new administration can "gut" the Second Amendment" by doing other things. Things such as passing laws on ammunition that make is so expensive that it become unaffordable. Or making up certain classes of weapons like the Clinton Administration did and banning them because the mere thought of them made some of the girly men pee in their shorts.

Or even proposing a 500 percent tax on ammo.
Oh wait....Obama already did that in Illinois. Surely he wouldn't do it again, right?

[SelfDefense]

Arguing that the BOR doesn't apply to the states won't hold any water since the War for Southern Independence was lost and the fourteenth amendment passed.

The Fourteenth Amendment has thing to do with the Bill of Rights. I suggest you read Charles Fairman's Stanford law review article in addition to Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter's concurrent opinion in the Adamson case.

Current trends in American jurisprudence simply can't justify failing to incorporate the second amendment. The discussion regarding Cruikshank in Heller practically begged someone to send them a case that would permit them to do so.

Current trends? So, you are a proponent of the living Constitution paradigm espoused by liberals?

Can you explain what incorporation is and describe its origin?

[SelfDefense]

First of all, I am not arguing about anything. You are assuming again.

Don't like the word argue? How about discussing your views regarding the incoming administrations abilty to affect state gun laws? Better?

I do think that the new administration can "gut" the Second Amendment" by doing other things. Things such as passing laws on ammunition that make is so expensive that it become unaffordable.

The Executive doesn't pass laws, either. Currently, ammunition is too expensive for some. Shall we redistribute ammunition to those less fortunate that ourselves? To each according to their need?

Or making up certain classes of weapons like the Clinton Administration did and banning them because the mere thought of them made some of the girly men pee in their shorts.

Personally, I think the private ownership of nuclear weapons is a bad idea.

Or even proposing a 500 percent tax on ammo.
Oh wait....Obama already did that in Illinois. Surely he wouldn't do it again, right?

Proposing is one thing. Passing it through the People's house, which will ensure that many representatives forego reelection is a completely different issue.

[Puppy]

So, you think Obama and the Executive branch can repeal a Constitutional Amendment? Interesting. My reading of the Constitution is that the Executive branch has nothing to do with the Amendment process. It is Congress and the states.

With our significant gains in gun rights, concealed carry laws and the 'Castle Doctrine', it is impossible to believe that 3/4 of the states will overturn their own laws. Ya think? Is that your argument?

But Obama will probably appoint the next Supreme court judges and the court barely supported guns right by one vote on the D.C. issue. One change in Judges is all they need to rape us.

[HotGuns]

Passing it through the People's house

Interesting use of words there.

[SelfDefense]

But Obama will probably appoint the next Supreme court judges and the court barely supported guns right by one vote on the D.C. issue. One change in Judges is all they need to rape us.

The fact is that the Justices most likely to retire during the upcoming Administration are the liberal justices. The Court makeup will not change.

Further, the Heller opinion applied only to Heller and Washington DC, not the states.

[concealed]

SelfDefense, I follow your post quite often for their informative information (I may or may not agree) and the entertainment value of the responses. It appears on this particular thread, that you are not too concerned about what Obama can do. While I do agree he cannot do anything by himself, I see the "holes in the swiss cheese" lining up for him. He does have democratic gains at all levels. While not totally bad news, this is by no means good news. Do you really trust the Federal government as much as it appears?

[SelfDefense]

SelfDefense, I follow your post quite often for their informative information (I may or may not agree) and the entertainment value of the responses.

Thanks. That is mostly the point. I doubt if I will change anyone's mind. It is interesting that in today's society there is virtually no chance to change anyone's mind on any subject. Evidence is twisted, minsinterpreted, and ignored on every side of every issue.

It appears on this particular thread, that you are not too concerned about what Obama can do. While I do agree he cannot do anything by himself, I see the "holes in the swiss cheese" lining up for him. He does have democratic gains at all levels. While not totally bad news, this is by no means good news. Do you really trust the Federal government as much as it appears?

I am not concerned at all with the Obama's influence on the gun topic despite his obvious and public anti-gun leanings.

I am extremely uneasy with his real influence on foreign policy and national defense, which actually is a threat to our nation.

Many people here have a narrow scope of their own perception of individual rights. I am concerned with the preservation of our nation, without which no one will have any rights at all.

[concealed]

Well said SelfDefense,
I totally agree. It is just that when he talks about gun control, he has at least thrown his hat into the ring! Certainly national defense, economy, immigration, et al... is much more important, but I just do not trust his liberal and socialist ways.

[HotGuns]

I am extremely uneasy with his real influence on foreign policy and national defense, which actually is a threat to our nation.

It appears that the Israeli's expect little to no support from him. Therefore they elected to pound Hamas into the dirt while we are in limbo. One Pres going out, one coming in.

That right there speaks volumes.

[SelfDefense]

It appears that the Israeli's expect little to no support from him. Therefore they elected to pound Hamas into the dirt while we are in limbo. One Pres going out, one coming in.

That right there speaks volumes.

Although it is completely off topic, I am a in complete support of Israel pounding Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. If the United States wants to abdicate our position as a superpower and being the world's policeman then I am completely secure in Israel taking that responsibility. And they will. Obama may not like it but his probable inaction and appeasement will have no effect on Israel's responses to world events.

[HotGuns]

Obama may not like it but his probable inaction and appeasement will have no effect on Israel's responses to world events.

Actually, his probable inaction and lack of support will just embolden the enemies of Israel even more and make life even more difficult than usual for them.

An Iranian friend of mine that has become an American citizen believes that the election of Obama will be the beginning of the end of the U.S. He was a radical Muslim that became a Christian and left his home when his family tried to kill him.

He has a very interesting perspective of things.