Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,632 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 08 August 2017 - 12:24 AM

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...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?


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 08 August 2017 - 12:25 AM.

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#2 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,131 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 08 August 2017 - 04:47 AM

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

#3 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 16,784 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 08 August 2017 - 04:53 AM

...
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.

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#4 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,217 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 08 August 2017 - 05:06 AM

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


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#5 spec4

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 05

Posted 08 August 2017 - 05:47 AM

Should also say handguns and ammunition including components of ammunition.



#6 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 08 August 2017 - 05:55 AM

clips -- ah, I mean: magazines



#7 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 August 2017 - 06:03 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#8 Draal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,163 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 14

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:47 AM

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^^^



#9 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 897 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 08 August 2017 - 11:22 AM

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.



#10 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 August 2017 - 01:50 PM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#11 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 08 August 2017 - 07:57 PM

McConnell needs to go !! Senators need to vote him out of Leadership!!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#12 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:31 PM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#13 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:56 PM

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

#14 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:59 AM

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



#15 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:05 AM

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

#16 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 09 August 2017 - 10:19 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#17 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:18 AM

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.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#18 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 09 August 2017 - 03:28 PM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#19 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 10 August 2017 - 04:51 PM

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.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#20 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:10 AM

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


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#21 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 14 August 2017 - 08:37 AM

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?

Edited by MrTriple, 14 August 2017 - 08:38 AM.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#22 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,973 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 August 2017 - 09:34 AM

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

Edited by skinnyb82, 14 August 2017 - 09:39 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users