The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 27, 2013, 06:39 PM   #251
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,043
I just went on the White House's website, and the EOs that Obama was supposed to have signed in late December are still not available. Subsequent EOs are, though. This bothers me.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:51 PM   #252
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Xero-
I didn't do a close read here, but what I see entirely ABSENT in any of these discussions is the legal premise behind Constitutional Law -- ...
Well, I certainly don't see anything germane in your post.

You might want to brush up a bit on the Constitution by having a good look at Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer.

Here's roughly how things work:
  1. The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
    Quote:
    Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

    Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
  2. And thus disagreements concerning the application of the the Constitution to the resolution of particular disputes is the province of the federal courts. The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.

  3. And that is no doubt what the Founding Fathers would have expected. Many were lawyers. They were familiar with English Common Law (the basis of our legal system) and that for a long time it had been customary for the courts, under the Common Law and understood the exercise of judicial power in such terms.

  4. Any gun control or gun ban law enacted by Congress or by any State is subject to judicial challenge on constitutional grounds. That thus becomes "a case arising under [the] Constitution" and thus as the Founding Fathers provided a proper subject for the exercise of the judicial powers of the federal courts.

  5. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

  6. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.

  7. There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:

    1. The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

    2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

    3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

  8. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

  9. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Vanya; March 27, 2013 at 06:57 PM. Reason: typo.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 30, 2013, 03:17 PM   #253
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
I just went on the White House's website, and the EOs that Obama was supposed to have signed in late December are still not available. Subsequent EOs are, though. This bothers me.
Bothers me also.

Is it possible that this may be Obama doing just what he said he was going to do? Using every power of the Presidential office to insure stricter gun control?

Maybe the EOs he signed in late Dec. don't support the subsequent signed EOs when pertaining to gun control. Just a thought.
shortwave is offline  
Old March 30, 2013, 07:08 PM   #254
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
Dana Milbank, in the Washington Post, said the other day that the moment was gone and the tide was turned. Obama lost the opportunity.

One wonders if this was deliberate? Make a fuss and then do nothing effective.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 30, 2013, 09:09 PM   #255
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
Not so much deliberate as a form of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks... Make a fuss, keep the base happy, and if some of it goes through, why, then, the base will be that much happier. If not -- well, they tried, they really did try, but the time just wasn't right...

That, and it's a wonderful way to distract the masses and keep them divided.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 30, 2013, 09:24 PM   #256
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Quote:
That, and it's a wonderful way to distract the masses and keep them divided.
Yep. Thing is, everyone knew Feinstein and Schumer were going to throw a tantrum and demand that their proposals be heard. They've been around too long to get shushed by leadership, so they were allowed to write their bills and rattle their sabers.

What we've seen these last two weeks is a gradual (and if I were a gun-control supporter, craven) backing away from the whole issue. The President is still working the rhetoric, but he's got nothing to lose. To the base, he looks like a true believer, but when it comes time to produce, he can say I tried, but the NRA wouldn't help me save the children.

I seem to remember calls for a "conversation" on mental illness. That also seems to have been pushed quietly out of focus as well.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 31, 2013, 04:27 PM   #257
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
Yep, the video game push died very quickly.

It's a common tactic - I recall a past president who would talk up a couple of amendments when in trouble. But then they went away.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 02:40 PM   #258
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,177
Why do I have a good feeling in the back of my mind that nothing is going to happen to us and our guns?

(My guard isn't down, just saying)
__________________
Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium. Ímperet ílli Déus, súpplices deprecámur: tuque, prínceps milítiæ cæléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in múndo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Ámen
Constantine is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 07:24 PM   #259
bt380
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Posts: 331
On one hand, everything he touches seems to fail in one form or fashion. The question is...which way will his failure land on this.... Will it fail in favor of the innocent or the criminals.
bt380 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 12:01 AM   #260
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,713
As difficult as it is to believe it appears that Mr. Obama may actually be using dated and disputed data to make his case for gun control. He constantly quotes a study that indicates 40% of guns are purchased with no background check. However, the study is over twenty years old and only includes responses from 251 people. When asked if the study was accurate the original author said, “The answer is I have no idea. This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ground-checks/
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 10:44 AM   #261
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...628.html?hp=l4


Pretty good analysis of the impotent attempt to pass new gun laws at the Federal level. Why they are useless - having no real effect - political incompetence and why the American people just didn't jump on the bandwagon despite the surface appeal of background checks.


The overreach of the Schumers, Feinsteins and Bloomberg demonstrating that 'reasonable gun control' wasn't the goal - it was total gun control as an end state.

--


Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 12:07 PM   #262
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...mbers/?hpid=z1

Demonstrates:

1. No overwhelming anger.
2. Bills were rightly seen as not a compromise but a first step on a gun control agenda.
3. The 90 % polling was unsophisticated surface analysis of views.

Tough luck, Joe Scarborough - your true conservative ship has sunk underneath you. You are either duplicitous, told by your boss what to say or last not really that clever. Or all three.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 12:26 PM   #263
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,862
This may also be of interest: from 538 (Nate Silver's blog), an analysis of how senators voted in relation to the percentage of gun owners in their states, and whether they're up for reelection in 2014.

The correlation is almost perfect for those up for reelection in the next cycle; and still strong for those who are not.

One might almost believe that they actually care what their constituents think...
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; April 24, 2013 at 01:00 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 12:34 PM   #264
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Glenn, the piece you linked drew a somewhat different conclusion: that voters thought more generally about gun regulations, rather than about the specifics of the proposed legislation; and that if they had only been willing to focus on specifics they would have agreed with the Obama administration and the bipartisan-supported bills.

I don't agree with them, but that was their summation.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 04:00 PM   #265
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
That's the problem, M - the specifics might have been passed as a limited action but today there is a general thought that it was a first step, etc. Thus, the specifics didn't carry the day - as it was a step for an overreach.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 05:20 PM   #266
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Pretty good analysis of the impotent attempt to pass new gun laws at the Federal level. Why they are useless - having no real effect - political incompetence and why the American people just didn't jump on the bandwagon despite the surface appeal of background checks.
This President has appeal, an unmistakable charisma. He has support in many areas, and his party is still strong in Congress. But he fails, he fails repeatedly and the reason he fails is because he is not a true statesman. Looking good and playing to emotional subjects, playing sympathy games using people like the kids and families of Newtown is showmanship, not statecraft. It looks great on the tube, but it won't sell Senators and State Reps and that is something he just doesn't know how to do.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 09:28 PM   #267
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
lcpiper, I understood Bill Clinton's charisma. I don't understand Barack Obama's. So, while I know what you mean by unmistakable charisma, I don't personally see it.

What I see, personally, is a lot of people who want to see charisma, where what I see is a guy who acted like an 8th grader during debates (making faces, looking at his watch, etc) and who generally acts as though he believes he is smarter than anybody with whom he comes in contact.

I guess some might actually find that charismatic; I do not. But I suspect more are projecting the traits they wanted to see in what they viewed as an historic first.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 10:43 PM   #268
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Quote:
playing sympathy games using people like the kids and families of Newtown is showmanship, not statecraft.
Very good point.

However, we're veering into straight politics, which is something we don't do here. Let's stick to the subject of the proposals, not the man.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 25, 2013, 12:29 PM   #269
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Well they have failed Federally on new gun control laws but they have gained several victories at the State level, all bad, no good the way I tally it.

Furthermore, as we all saw it coming, they haven't paused a heartbeat before launching into new attacks. They are using Gabby Giffords to go after Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte ...
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...trol-measures/) so they will try to use the exact same tactics to remove those who oppose their plans.

We didn't win anything guys and the only good that can come of this that the divide between gun laws in different states is getting so wide that soon it should be undeniable which states suffer the most from the wrong approach to gun control.

It doesn't mean it will stop the antis or get them to stop lying to get their way. But maybe their lies will loose some of their charm as facts start proving them wrong to people who care enough to find out.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 25, 2013, 10:42 PM   #270
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
But maybe their lies will loose some of their charm as facts start proving them wrong to people who care enough to find out.
I would like to think enough people care about the facts for this to happen. Based on may of my resent conversations I doubt it though. Many people, on both ends of the conversation, are resolutely uninterested in the facts or reality. Some to the point that they will no longer talk to me because they could not refute my facts with the the unthinking sound bites of the talking heads. I would like to count that as a sign that the truth will win out, but I am not so sure.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old March 25, 2014, 10:08 PM   #271
Axelwik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 371
In the end, despite all the fuss, the only gun legislation the President signed into law (so far) was allowing concealed carry in national parks, and allowing guns in luggage on Amtrak trains.

If actions speak louder than words it appears to me that he's a pro-gun president.
Axelwik is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 09:35 AM   #272
boltomatic
Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2014
Posts: 61
I don't need to tell you all that the whole gun control movmeent is little more than grandstanding, but I have a few points to share.

One thing I like to point out is that even if a lot of strict gun control were to pass, it would likely to little to stop criminals from getting guns, and to illustrate that I point out drugs. Drugs (like heroin, cocaine, the illegals) have been completely banned since the 1970's. That said, ever since they were completely banned, drug use and its associated problems have increased significantly. On top of that, we spend BILLIONS of dollars every year enforcing drug laws and incarcerating non-violent offenders. What makes it even worse is that many researchers have concluded that current US drug policy is actually making the drug problem worse, they say that we woudl have less drug problems (including related crimes and medical problems) if we simply got rid of drug laws.

So, if a complete ban on drugs for the past 40 years has not kept drugs out of the country, how will I gun ban do so? The more we restrict guns, the bigger the opportunity for the black market. Its supply and demand, criminals will always want guns so they will always get guns. Right now, they are able to get them through quasi-legal means like straw purchases, but if we were to pass laws that ended straw purchases, the black market would quickly compensate for the loss.

That said, if we hope to do anything about gun violence, we need to target the offenders, not their tools. Premeditated crimes committed with firearms need to have harsh mandatory sentencing guidelines. I don't see any reason why someone who robs a store with a gun should not go to prison for 25-life. Same thing with gang members and drug dealers, if these people are caught with a gun they should be locked away for at least 25 years. I think a lot of criminals would think twice about robbing a convience store with a gun if they knew they would face a mandatory 25 years in prison for getting caugtht, stores would still be robbed but at least less innocent store oeners would be killed in the process.

We also need to step up law enforcement in high crime areas. Currently, police tend to avoid areas with a lot of violent crime, only responding to 911 calls. We need to create special task forces within police department to patrol and enforce the law in these dangerous areas. We need something between your standard patrolman and a SWAT team to patrol these high crime areas regularly. I remember when I ran EMS in Camden, NJ we would roll in there with bulletproof vests and the cops were nowhere to be found, if we needed police we had to call the state troopers directly and wait 20 minutes for them to get there.

End rant.
boltomatic is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 10:04 AM   #273
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
In the end, despite all the fuss, the only gun legislation the President signed into law (so far) was allowing concealed carry in national parks, and allowing guns in luggage on Amtrak trains.
And let us not forget that all manufactures, wholesalers and most retailers made profit like never before. Like crazy money.

According to his plan he did the following that helped curb gun violence:

- Got a confirmed ATF director
- Sent Federal money to pay for active shooter training for Law Enforcement
- Clarified that Federal Law does not prohibit medical professionals from warning law enforcement about potential violent actors (the HIPPA EO)
- Launched responsible gun ownership campaign (a joke really given funding)
- Provided Federal model for school emergency plans and other guidance

These were all part of the master plan that they were able to do.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa..._time_full.pdf
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old July 20, 2014, 10:26 AM   #274
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 676
He also just ended imports of Saiga rifles, but not Stolichnaya --very telling about how much the move is about punishing Russia.

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old July 29, 2014, 10:44 AM   #275
captneil19
Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2014
Location: poplarville,ms.
Posts: 69
predisdents gun control

Well the buck doesn't stop there,since the V.A. Hospitals are under the federal control the president thinks he is slick.He is going to try and use them as a tool to take away the weapons from the veterans.The doctors are asking the vets if they own any weapons and are the safely stored.I'm I'm talking the doc that deal with the ptsd patients.Well if the president says vets with ptsd can't have weapons the s as me goes for policemen .They will have to fire 90per cent of the force,because every one of them has some type of ptsd.You can bet your last dollar he is up to no good with this.
captneil19 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15857 seconds with 9 queries