View Single Post
Old August 13, 2014, 11:23 AM   #11
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
Heller was not a resounding win for us. Heller was watered down in order to get a fifth justice on board.
+1. As I've argued in past threads, I'm not certain that Heller's language helps us to undo AWB-style bans.

Problem #1: Scalia's nebulous "presumptively lawful" language implies that feature-focused prohibitions could stand.

Problem #2: Our own rhetoric works against us.

Us: "No decent shot requires 18 rounds to stop a burglar."

Them: "Then you can make do with 10 and get more practice." (This, and you can get 10rd mags for almost any semi-auto sold in large numbers after 1990 or so; hence, such mags are certainly in "common use", to use another Heller phrase.)

Us: "The magazine ban is pointless because, with practice, I can shoot a semi-auto with 10-round mags almost as fast as I can shoot with 17-round mags."

Them: "Then what's the problem with the magazine ban? It sounds like the problem is that YOU need more practice."

Us: "Banning flash hiders, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips is stupid, because they're just cosmetic, and the basic gun still works without them."

Them: "If those features are just cosmetic, and the basic gun still works without them, then you don't really need 'em. Stop yer whining."

IMHO we need to draw a lesson from recent setbacks for the pro-choice* movement, and NOT assume that we can rest on our laurels when faced with new legislation, simply because we've prevailed in the courts against past legislation.

(*Let's NOT discuss this issue further- I'm just drawing a comparison.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; August 13, 2014 at 01:32 PM. Reason: stuff added and then reworded
carguychris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02608 seconds with 8 queries