The "Second Amendment Guarantee" Act . . . would this preempt "assault weapon" bans?

[ChicagoRonin70]

So, I was browsing new legislation announcements and came across this:

 

H.R.3576 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the authority of States and localities to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes, in relation to rifles or shotguns.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3576

 

Introduced on July 28 by Representative Chris Collins of New York.

 

So, theoretically, would this preclude states and localities from enacting or enforcing so-called "assault weapon" bans on modern sporting rifles and various "evil" semi-auto shotguns?

[Davey]

No idea. The text of the bill isn't available yet.

[mauserme]

...

So, theoretically, would this preclude states and localities from enacting or enforcing so-called "assault weapon" bans on modern sporting rifles and various "evil" semi-auto shotguns?[/font][/size]

That's how he's been presenting it to reporters - specifically to get rid of New York's Safe Act but affecting all states.

[BobPistol]

This would be a perfect bill to put national reciprocity in.

[spec4]

Should also say handguns and ammunition including components of ammunition.

[Plinkermostly]

clips -- ah, I mean: magazines

[skinnyb82]

Throw in suppressors as well. File this as an omnibus bill, add in a provision to remove cans from NFA Title II, deregulate a whole bunch of stuff. The more, the better.

 

I'd be happy with a straight repeal of the NFA and neutering of the GCA but a guy can dream. I'd love for nothing more than the State of California being told "Nope, you can't do that, it's unconstitutional." They also need to provide for both criminal penalties for those public officials who deliberately infringe on their constituents' rights. As well as civil remedies, huge statutory damages for municipalities and agents of the government found guilty of violating provisions of the Act.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Draal]

Throw in suppressors as well. File this as an omnibus bill, add in a provision to remove cans from NFA Title II, deregulate a whole bunch of stuff. The more, the better. I'd be happy with a straight repeal of the NFA and neutering of the GCA but a guy can dream. I'd love for nothing more than the State of California being told "Nope, you can't do that, it's unconstitutional." They also need to provide for both criminal penalties for those public officials who deliberately infringe on their constituents' rights. As well as civil remedies, huge statutory damages for municipalities and agents of the government found guilty of violating provisions of the Act. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

^^^ALL THIS^^^

[Hazborgufen]

Does anyone actually expect this to happen? Seems to me that if this passed, Republicans would lose a major carrot that they like to use to entice votes. Meanwhile it would give the Democrats a major piece of legislation for their base to "fight against." It's lose-lose as far as the nominally "pro-gun" party and politicians are concerned.

 

This is probably just bluster to appear as if they are doing something while not actually accomplishing anything.

[skinnyb82]

Pfft I'll be shocked if it makes it outta committee. McConnell actually had the balls to say that Trump expects too much out of Congress. Expecting them to do exactly what they say they will has become "unrealistic?" Well, yeah, I guess expecting Congress to do its job is expecting FAR too much.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[TomKoz]

McConnell needs to go !! Senators need to vote him out of Leadership!!

[skinnyb82]

Not just McConnell but McCain, Flake (such an appropriate last name), Collins, Heller...the entire US Senate. Toss them all and start over. Then hit up the House. What'd Ryan say today? It "seems like" they aren't getting anything done? Yeah, it "seems" that way because it IS that way. "The Swamp" is a friggin national park, protected wilderness/wildlife refuge, and wetlands, where anyone who screws with it will be ruined for life, all rolled into one.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[TomKoz]

If the other States can vote out the Establishment (swamp) Senators, our Country just may have a chance !!

[Plinkermostly]

And 'they' have their own retirement and healthcare systems!

[richp]

Hi,

 

Seems to me this presents some Tenth Amendment problems.

 

We clamor and squall about Federal infringement in other areas, based on the Tenth. Sticking to those principles makes it tough to support something like this, doesn't it?

 

Just asking....

 

Rich Phillips

[skinnyb82]

The 14th Amendment trumps the 10th. Text of the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't see an issue with this law since the Constitution delegates power to Congress. Otherwise the NFA and GCA would be declared unconstitutional. I'd like to see an argument that the NFA and GCA are constitutional but this is not.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[MrTriple]

Throw in suppressors as well. File this as an omnibus bill, add in a provision to remove cans from NFA Title II, deregulate a whole bunch of stuff. The more, the better.

 

I'd be happy with a straight repeal of the NFA and neutering of the GCA but a guy can dream. I'd love for nothing more than the State of California being told "Nope, you can't do that, it's unconstitutional." They also need to provide for both criminal penalties for those public officials who deliberately infringe on their constituents' rights. As well as civil remedies, huge statutory damages for municipalities and agents of the government found guilty of violating provisions of the Act.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Or a clarification that 1983 statues apply in 2nd amendment cases.

[skinnyb82]

 

Or a clarification that 1983 statues apply in 2nd amendment cases.

That also works. It SHOULD be plain as day since the statute explicitly states that any civil liberty is covered under 1983 but courts don't seem to understand that the 2A right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights.Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[MrTriple]

 

Or a clarification that 1983 statues apply in 2nd amendment cases.

That also works. It SHOULD be plain as day since the statute explicitly states that any civil liberty is covered under 1983 but courts don't seem to understand that the 2A right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

The next time the SCOTUS accepts a 2A case, I wouldn't be surprised to see them address issues like this. I could easily see Thomas and Gorsuch clarifying things like scrutiny, 1983, how Heller has been badly misinterpreted, and so on.

[skinnyb82]

The next time the SCOTUS accepts a 2A case, I wouldn't be surprised to see them address issues like this. I could easily see Thomas and Gorsuch clarifying things like scrutiny, 1983, how Heller has been badly misinterpreted, and so on.

 

Based on the Wrenn opinion, it seems as though the D.C Circuit has adopted its own test, the "Heller Test" so to speak. Three tiers of scrutiny, and somewhere in there is "Heller-level" scrutiny. What is that? What is the governmental burden under this quasi-fourth tier? Thomas and Gorsuch (and before Gorsuch, Scalia) have already ripped their colleagues in multiple dissents in denial of cert over ignoring Heller, etc.

 

The problem is that, in 1983 cases, I've seen nominal damages of $1 awarded to Plaintiffs. That's on top of their legal expenses, so five or six figures to litigate the case, but damages are nil. The only way that this gets solved is by hitting them in the wallet. And if that doesn't work, hit them harder. Money talks.

 

Any Thomas and Gorsuch concurrence would not be the controlling opinion. Just like Alito's concurrence in Caetano (if that were controlling, it would be the death knell to AWBs).

 

 

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[MrTriple]

 

The next time the SCOTUS accepts a 2A case, I wouldn't be surprised to see them address issues like this. I could easily see Thomas and Gorsuch clarifying things like scrutiny, 1983, how Heller has been badly misinterpreted, and so on.

Based on the Wrenn opinion, it seems as though the D.C Circuit has adopted its own test, the "Heller Test" so to speak. Three tiers of scrutiny, and somewhere in there is "Heller-level" scrutiny. What is that? What is the governmental burden under this quasi-fourth tier? Thomas and Gorsuch (and before Gorsuch, Scalia) have already ripped their colleagues in multiple dissents in denial of cert over ignoring Heller, etc.

 

The problem is that, in 1983 cases, I've seen nominal damages of $1 awarded to Plaintiffs. That's on top of their legal expenses, so five or six figures to litigate the case, but damages are nil. The only way that this gets solved is by hitting them in the wallet. And if that doesn't work, hit them harder. Money talks.

 

Any Thomas and Gorsuch concurrence would not be the controlling opinion. Just like Alito's concurrence in Caetano (if that were controlling, it would be the death knell to AWBs).

 

 

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

So let's discuss the concurrence issue. Let's say Kennedy gets replaced by a constitutionalist, does that mean we have a reliable 5-man majority for 2A issues? If so, what's the chances of getting an AWB overturned? The issue of scrutiny defined?

[skinnyb82]

Chances of dumping an AWB? Well, assuming Kennedy retires, the odds of that will increase. That being said, Roberts could be a problem simply due to his...history of ignoring the rule of law in order to placate politicians and pansies across America. It is the issue of scrutiny. As in they say Heller doesn't fit within the traditional tiers. They need to treat it EXACTLY like they treat a 1A infringement. You can't have a "Heller test" (the right is effectively destroyed, therefore unconstitutional). Anything short of that destruction, I don't know.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[Raw Power]

Does anyone actually expect this to happen? Seems to me that if this passed, Republicans would lose a major carrot that they like to use to entice votes. Meanwhile it would give the Democrats a major piece of legislation for their base to "fight against." It's lose-lose as far as the nominally "pro-gun" party and politicians are concerned.

 

This is probably just bluster to appear as if they are doing something while not actually accomplishing anything.

 

There is no reason why the Republicans couldn't pass this right now. If they are truly pro-gun, I want to see them show it.

 

Both parties just give us Bread and Circuses.

[Sigma]

Glad we have a President that would actually consider signing it.

[skinnyb82]

Glad we have a President that would actually consider signing it.

Yeah, if if hits his desk. Which I don't believe it will, considering that Congress is a bunch of lazy slobs who do nothing, complaining that they get nothing done (so shut up and work).

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Plinkermostly]

Well, if you had your own pension, medical coverage, and life perq.s -- would you want anything to change?

[BobPistol]

Does anyone actually expect this to happen? Seems to me that if this passed, Republicans would lose a major carrot that they like to use to entice votes. Meanwhile it would give the Democrats a major piece of legislation for their base to "fight against." It's lose-lose as far as the nominally "pro-gun" party and politicians are concerned.

 

This is probably just bluster to appear as if they are doing something while not actually accomplishing anything.

 

Totally agree.

 

Cronies get enriched by the status quo.

 

Same reason they would never pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, or roll back Same Sex marriage.

 

Both the R half and the D half are really the same party. The R half says "vote for us because the D's will do evil" The D half says "Vote for us or else the R's will stop us from doing what we want to do."

 

Then outside of the cameras and microphones, they are in smoke filled back rooms, they pat each other on the back agreeing on which cronies to be enriched.

[ghk012]

Well, if you had your own pension, medical coverage, and life perq.s -- would you want anything to change?

It's a falacy that they have all this. I've heard this so many times, I found myself repeating it as well, but the reality is that their pension is more restrictive than most city workers. The per year pension benefit was much lower than my area teachers and city workers. As for healthcare, they get to pay up for a better plan if they want, but it's out of pocket and no different than you and I if we had the means and desire to pay up for better policy.

 

There is a Snopes on Nancy pelosi getting 800,000 plus a year pension. Snopes breaks it down. It's grossly overstated. I even double checked Snopes to make sure they were right.

 

I researched healthcare when a group I was advocating for wanted to use healthcare as an argument that senatirs should be subject to the same policies available to us. Unfortunately, they are, so the argument had to be dropped.

[BigJim]

 

Well, if you had your own pension, medical coverage, and life perq.s -- would you want anything to change?

It's a falacy that they have all this. I've heard this so many times, I found myself repeating it as well, but the reality is that their pension is more restrictive than most city workers. The per year pension benefit was much lower than my area teachers and city workers. As for healthcare, they get to pay up for a better plan if they want, but it's out of pocket and no different than you and I if we had the means and desire to pay up for better policy.

 

There is a Snopes on Nancy pelosi getting 800,000 plus a year pension. Snopes breaks it down. It's grossly overstated. I even double checked Snopes to make sure they were right.

 

I researched healthcare when a group I was advocating for wanted to use healthcare as an argument that senatirs should be subject to the same policies available to us. Unfortunately, they are, so the argument had to be dropped.

 

and you believe Snopes?

[Hazborgufen]

 

Does anyone actually expect this to happen? Seems to me that if this passed, Republicans would lose a major carrot that they like to use to entice votes. Meanwhile it would give the Democrats a major piece of legislation for their base to "fight against." It's lose-lose as far as the nominally "pro-gun" party and politicians are concerned.

 

This is probably just bluster to appear as if they are doing something while not actually accomplishing anything.

 

There is no reason why the Republicans couldn't pass this right now. If they are truly pro-gun, I want to see them show it.

 

Both parties just give us Bread and Circuses.

 

 

This is where you are getting tripped up. I would guess than most are only nominally pro-gun. I doubt there are many true believers. This is probably true of all political issues really. A politicians number one job isn't to serve the people or anything idealistic like that. Rather, their primary purpose is to stay in office. To do so they put their finger to the wind to see where it is blowing and adopt those positions.

 

That's why nothing will get done. If the pro-gun politicians proactively eliminate gun control laws, they lose an issue that they can run on. The specter of additional gun control is too useful for rallying votes to eliminate the possibility.