Jump to content

Are The Lawyers Ready?


BigJim

Recommended Posts

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 04:53 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 04:53 AM - No reason given

 

With all do respect they are not that interested in clamping down with current laws. Their ultimate goal is civilian disarmament. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sleepwalking through this war. They pass laws and then don’t enforce them. The problems continue, we b**** and they pass more stringent laws. They don’t enforce these laws and the circle tightens.

We have a number of state wide bans that no one is enforcing. Why? Because time is on their side. The death of the gun culture is a long game. When we old warriors pass the next generation is far less committed to the battle. The antis know this and have the patients to wait for the changes that are coming. No one is safe, no state is immune.

This is their goal. They DONT CARE about “gun violence”. People need to get this through their heads. Just like Everytown and MDA, they use useful idiots to do groundwork for an agenda that has 1 goal: the end of the 2nd amendment. They use tragedies and crocodile tears to play into the emotions of the weak sheeple, all while smiling and laughing behind closed doors. They have zero interest in anything other than a gun grab.

Got that right. They won't do anything about gang violence because it suits their agenda and they use it as an excuse to ask for more gun control. They have a plan they are following and are paid by Bloomberg to carry out his agenda.

Link to comment

 

 

So you want registration?

 

I am not sure to be honest.

 

We have a problem with straw sales, I think we can all admit that. As a result, there are guns getting into the wrong hands and that results in calls for more regulations that will negatively affect the law abiding gun owner simply because we cannot find the ones that are breaking the law. If there was a way to get these law breakers, isn't something that should be considered?

 

 

I can applaud you for trying to apply what you believe to be reason and logic, but you're ignorant of a SCTOUS case which shoots down that logic and reason. You assert that if we had 'registration', we'd be able to catch criminals, right? wrong! U.S. v. Haynes found that felons cannot register guns, because it incriminates them and violates the fourth amendment - so of course, the only people registration can be applied to by default are gun owners who are law-abiding.

 

Straw sales will always be an issue, whenever you have someone who is not eligible for a particular product or service - whether that is booze or porn - or firearms, there will always be a demand for any 'need' out there by someone on the blackmarket or the open market for that matter. We need to stop believing human beings are just common variables that we can easily solve for. Crime is complex, and the reason people engage in it can vary from, 'I was bored' to something that boggles even the brightest minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So you want registration?

 

I am not sure to be honest.

 

We have a problem with straw sales, I think we can all admit that. As a result, there are guns getting into the wrong hands and that results in calls for more regulations that will negatively affect the law abiding gun owner simply because we cannot find the ones that are breaking the law. If there was a way to get these law breakers, isn't something that should be considered?

I can applaud you for trying to apply what you believe to be reason and logic, but you're ignorant of a SCTOUS case which shoots down that logic and reason. You assert that if we had 'registration', we'd be able to catch criminals, right? wrong! U.S. v. Haynes found that felons cannot register guns, because it incriminates them and violates the fourth amendment - so of course, the only people registration can be applied to by default are gun owners who are law-abiding.

 

Straw sales will always be an issue, whenever you have someone who is not eligible for a particular product or service - whether that is booze or porn - or firearms, there will always be a demand for any 'need' out there by someone on the blackmarket or the open market for that matter. We need to stop believing human beings are just common variables that we can easily solve for. Crime is complex, and the reason people engage in it can vary from, 'I was bored' to something that boggles even the brightest minds.

There was registration in Chicago from 2010 to 2014 when it was scrapped by the city and about 10% of gun owners registered their guns. It was a waste of resources and it didn't do anything and officers were put on the street where they were needed.

 

Not surprisingly it didn't stop the gang violence, people with FOID cards are not the problem. Criminals steal guns too, what can be done about that? What about allow people to carry their guns and not leave them in their cars.

Canada tried registration too and gave up.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#333991f85a1b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

 

Not surprisingly it didn't stop the gang violence, people with FOID cards are not the problem. Criminals steal guns too, what can be done about that? What about allow people to carry their guns and not leave them in their cars.

Canada tried registration too and gave up.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#333991f85a1b

 

 

That question right there is how we know the ultimate goal of the anti-gun community is to ban all firearms, period. It's the only logical conclusion (to them) to their arguments, and the only way to guarantee (to them) that criminals won't get their hands on guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[snip]

 

Not surprisingly it didn't stop the gang violence, people with FOID cards are not the problem. Criminals steal guns too, what can be done about that? What about allow people to carry their guns and not leave them in their cars.

Canada tried registration too and gave up.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#333991f85a1b

 

 

That question right there is how we know the ultimate goal of the anti-gun community is to ban all firearms, period. It's the only logical conclusion (to them) to their arguments, and the only way to guarantee (to them) that criminals won't get their hands on guns.

 

Many of the antis have gotten brazen lately and come out and said they want to take them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, back to the original point of the post...with Putzker sitting int he gov's mansion and the Dems having a veto-proof majority (not that JB would veto any gun legislation that makes it to his desk anyway)...

 

1) Should we expect every anti-2A bill to pass despite our (and our lobbyists', God love 'em ) best efforts?

2) Will the downstate Dems vote party line (even though many really do not like JB and lean more centrist when it comes to Constitutional matters)?

3) As much as I hate compromise when it comes to 2A, will there be some compromising from both sides to avoid law-suits?

4) Should we just hinge all our bets on SCOTUS finally taking up an anti-2A case and (hopefully) ruling in our favor (if they even take it up)?

 

Serious answers, please. Everyone has mentioned moving out of state, boating accidents, alternative storage options, selling everything, etc. Is that all we've got, or is it more nuanced than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expect every anti-2A bill to pass.

 

Not every downstate Democrat will vote with Chicago. It depends on how much they fear Madigan never letting any of their bills out of committee and his money working against them next primary election.

 

There won't be any compromise. Chicago Democrats will pass whatever they want just to see how much survives legal challenges.

 

It's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket. No one is going to save you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expect every anti-2A bill to pass.

 

Not every downstate Democrat will vote with Chicago. It depends on how much they fear Madigan never letting any of their bills out of committee and his money working against them next primary election.

 

There won't be any compromise. Chicago Democrats will pass whatever they want just to see how much survives legal challenges.

 

It's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket. No one is going to save you.

 

So, 100% loss on all fronts? Everything really is hopeless? Why bother even fighting? Just take the money anyone would give to the PACs or Legislative Action Committees or lobbyists of your 2A organization of choice and spend it on something else? Not to mention saving time by not even bothering to write/call/visit your rep or senator...and IGOLD, does that then become fruitless? I mean, if the Dems are so emboldened that they don't care, what can you really hold over them? If they think that they are going to pass anything, then why waste time filling out witness slips and watching the slaughter on Blueroomstream because it won't matter what we do? If Madigan controls everything and everyone in the House, then what does it really matter?

 

What if the main thing by the end of 2019 is if someone has had to decide is to (potentially) register an "assault weapon," become a felon, or take themselves completely out of the game by getting rid of everything?

 

Do not get me wrong, my stomach hurts with all of you when the crap hits the fan in Springfield. Every biased news segment, 60 Minutes special, lame-brained comment by gun-grabbers in the state and nationally, entitled students who don't understand the Constitution, etc. I hate it every time it comes up.

 

How do you really get anyone to care about putting up a fight if the feeling is the fight is lost? :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, back to the original point of the post...with Putzker sitting int he gov's mansion and the Dems having a veto-proof majority (not that JB would veto any gun legislation that makes it to his desk anyway)...

 

1) Should we expect every anti-2A bill to pass despite our (and our lobbyists', God love 'em ) best efforts?

2) Will the downstate Dems vote party line (even though many really do not like JB and lean more centrist when it comes to Constitutional matters)?

3) As much as I hate compromise when it comes to 2A, will there be some compromising from both sides to avoid law-suits?

4) Should we just hinge all our bets on SCOTUS finally taking up an anti-2A case and (hopefully) ruling in our favor (if they even take it up)?

 

Serious answers, please. Everyone has mentioned moving out of state, boating accidents, alternative storage options, selling everything, etc. Is that all we've got, or is it more nuanced than that?

 

1. Not every anti-2A bill will pass (see #2) but every bill that DOES pass will be signed.

 

2. I expect any number of Downstate Dems to continue to vote their constituency and oppose rabid 2A bills. Most don’t like Madigan and his ways and I believe Madigan’s reach downstate is lessening.

 

3. Compromise is ALWAYS a part of the political picture and always will be. Compromise to “avoid lawsuits”, however, rarely enters the picture.

 

4. I’m not sure we will ever see the proverbial landmark case come before the USSC. BOTH sides tread very very carefully around the issue because the risk of an “adverse” ruling is so great. I think instead of the bombshell case we may see a bunch of “mini” cases dealing with the small, lesser aspects of it.

IMHO, the only real possibility for that landmark case is if a far left leaning state becomes emboldened and launches a total ban — something so nefarious that USSC cannot continue to duck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. Not every anti-2A bill will pass (see #2) but every bill that DOES pass will be signed.

But the ones that do pass will do serious damage to our side.

 

2. I expect any number of Downstate Dems to continue to vote their constituency and oppose rabid 2A bills. Most don’t like Madigan and his ways and I believe Madigan’s reach downstate is lessening.

But is it enough to shutdown anti-gun bills? Probably not.

 

3. Compromise is ALWAYS a part of the political picture and always will be. Compromise to “avoid lawsuits”, however, rarely enters the picture.

The anti's idea of compromise is instead of beating you with a crowbar they'll use a tire iron. Either way they will expect you to smile and say "thank you, may I have another".

 

4. I’m not sure we will ever see the proverbial landmark case come before the USSC. BOTH sides tread very very carefully around the issue because the risk of an “adverse” ruling is so great. I think instead of the bombshell case we may see a bunch of “mini” cases dealing with the small, lesser aspects of it.

IMHO, the only real possibility for that landmark case is if a far left leaning state becomes emboldened and launches a total ban — something so nefarious that USSC cannot continue to duck.

The SCOTUS does not have the stomach for gun cases. It will take a constitutional crises (like an all out ban or confiscation law that directly conflicts with 2A) to get them involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us can predict the future so I'll reflect on the past.

 

We've faced super-majorities before. We've faced vehemently anti-gun governors before. I'm not trying to trivialize how seriously we need to take the situation, but it's rarely as bad as it looks on first glance.

Yup. They can easily lose that supermajority.

 

2A is the only thing holding some downstate seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, back to the original point of the post...with Putzker sitting int he gov's mansion and the Dems having a veto-proof majority (not that JB would veto any gun legislation that makes it to his desk anyway)...

 

1) Should we expect every anti-2A bill to pass despite our (and our lobbyists', God love 'em ) best efforts?

2) Will the downstate Dems vote party line (even though many really do not like JB and lean more centrist when it comes to Constitutional matters)?

3) As much as I hate compromise when it comes to 2A, will there be some compromising from both sides to avoid law-suits?

4) Should we just hinge all our bets on SCOTUS finally taking up an anti-2A case and (hopefully) ruling in our favor (if they even take it up)?

 

Serious answers, please. Everyone has mentioned moving out of state, boating accidents, alternative storage options, selling everything, etc. Is that all we've got, or is it more nuanced than that?

 

For a serious answer, I refer you to Mauserme:

 

 

None of us can predict the future so I'll reflect on the past.

 

We've faced super-majorities before. We've faced vehemently anti-gun governors before. I'm not trying to trivialize how seriously we need to take the situation, but it's rarely as bad as it looks on first glance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, back to the original point of the post...with Putzker sitting int he gov's mansion and the Dems having a veto-proof majority (not that JB would veto any gun legislation that makes it to his desk anyway)...

 

1) Should we expect every anti-2A bill to pass despite our (and our lobbyists', God love 'em ) best efforts?

2) Will the downstate Dems vote party line (even though many really do not like JB and lean more centrist when it comes to Constitutional matters)?

3) As much as I hate compromise when it comes to 2A, will there be some compromising from both sides to avoid law-suits?

4) Should we just hinge all our bets on SCOTUS finally taking up an anti-2A case and (hopefully) ruling in our favor (if they even take it up)?

 

Serious answers, please. Everyone has mentioned moving out of state, boating accidents, alternative storage options, selling everything, etc. Is that all we've got, or is it more nuanced than that?

 

For a serious answer, I refer you to Mauserme:

 

 

None of us can predict the future so I'll reflect on the past.

 

We've faced super-majorities before. We've faced vehemently anti-gun governors before. I'm not trying to trivialize how seriously we need to take the situation, but it's rarely as bad as it looks on first glance.

 

 

I feel that way too, but I needed some reassurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, December 2, 2018 at 05:50 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, December 2, 2018 at 05:50 PM - No reason given

Nobody knows for sure. What concerns me is the public opposition, MOMs and Bloomberg, are a well oiled antigun machine now. They are focused daily on the ground taking states one at a time. They have whatever money it takes to accomplish their mission. Where they find openings they will parlay that power to weaken gun rights. I have spoken to their members at my Church, they are very careful about emphasizing their main reassurance that we “ don’t want to take your guns away”. We just want reasonable controls.

It’s not “my” guns that worries me , it’s the loss of “our” collective 2nd Amendment rights. MADD changed the national discussion on drunk driving, MDA is working to do the same with guns.

Times are changing, not sure where this will all end up. I lived on acreage in the far north west suburbs for 45 years, had my own range for years until more urban dwellers tired of the city and move to our area. Passed laws banning such activities. Now I’ve moved into a nice neighborhood. Removed stickers from my truck , and will not engage with others about my passion until I get a feel for the folks around me. I sold my MSRs last month to Cabelas. I’m starting to transition into the reality I feel is coming. I hope I’m completely wrong about our situation.

Link to comment

 

Yup. They can easily lose that supermajority.

 

2A is the only thing holding some downstate seats.

Which seats?

 

Are there any pro-2A downstate Dems left, come January?

 

 

I have never considered any downstate Dem really pro-2A, they are more so smoke and mirrors supporters that are easy targets of the antis, that will give 2A-rights away while grandstanding and saying "I tried, but we have to compromise" a polite way of saying Madigan called and corrected my bad ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yup. They can easily lose that supermajority.

 

2A is the only thing holding some downstate seats.

Which seats?

 

Are there any pro-2A downstate Dems left, come January?

 

 

I have never considered any downstate Dem really pro-2A, they are more so smoke and mirrors supporters that are easy targets of the antis, that will give 2A-rights away while grandstanding and saying "I tried, but we have to compromise" a polite way of saying Madigan called and corrected my bad ideas.

 

 

I don't have my scorecard handy...

 

There are pro gun Democrats in our legislature

There are anti gun Republicans in our legislature

The right to keep and bear arms needs to in the middle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...