{23:20} {JayG} HR 822 does not have a snowball's chance in hell.Try as I may, I can't think of any pro-gun/pro-Second Amendment legislation at the Federal level since the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act - which ushered in the Hughes Amendment that forever fixed the supply of legally transferable machine guns. The expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban does not count - that's a loss at the state level, as certain states {COUGH} MA {COUGH} kept the Federal level intact, and all other gains that I can think of have been at the state level.
{23:20} {JayG} sorry
{23:21} {JayG} we have not had *any* progun legislation at the
Federal level since FOPA, and look at the price we paid for that.
Please, for the love of all that's good and wholesome, prove me wrong here and point out a win at the federal level for our 2A rights...
That is all.
9 comments:
Judicial realm - heller and mcdonald, legislative and executive - no clue i only got old enough to vote a couple elections ago and I've only been into shooting a cople years so I never really paid attention.
Not gonna happen. Even if the Senate passes it (which is unlikely) Obama will veto it.
The congress critters are too happy to pass the buck on controversial legislation to the courts.
Federal--Application of State law to carry in National Parks (2010?) was attached to the Credit Card "recovery" legislation.
I don't have the bill number at hand...
Your point is well taken though Jay. That was legislation passed by the D-controlled Congress and signed by the D Pres.
I'd check with the NRA for details, but doesn't the Tiamat Law have to be renewed every year?
The problem at the federal level is that the majority of Americans just don't care. Even a number of hunters, who you'd think would be pro-2A, won't rock the boat because the current restrictions don't prevent them from doing what they want. Congress will address things if enough constituents (or rich enough constituents) bitch about them, but there aren't enough of us to reach that critical mass. Plus our calls are diluted by calls from the antigunners.
Many politicians' idea of leadership is to see where everybody is going, then run around and get in front of them. They don't see a clear direction on gun rights because we're pulling one way and the Bradys are pulling the other way, so they won't get involved.
That's why we're more likely to find satisfaction in the courts than in the legislature. The courts (ideally) don't care what the majority thinks, they're concerned with what the Constitution says.
Since 1986:
- Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
- CCW in national parks
- National carry for law enforcement (debatable, but somewhat related to HR822)
We shoulda had a bunch of unread amendments stuffed into the unread obumblecare bill... that seems to me to be the way to repair a lot of the damage. If we just hada politician who really believed in gun-owner rights. EVERY bill that is submitted should have an amendment of some sort favorable to us...if only.
The Tiarht amendment is another one.
I think Sebastian at PAGunBlog/SNBQ nee SIH had a post about this, but I can't find it at the moment.
Keeping DC from becoming its own state counts as a legislative win, since they tied it to repealing the District's gun ban.
Post a Comment