Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The gun control drive after the Oregon shootings

After the mass shooting in Oregon last week, there have been renewed calls from all the usual suspects for more gun control.  It won't work, of course, as I pointed out last week . . . but that hasn't stopped them trying.

Reason has published an article titled 'How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps'.  They're anything but easy steps, but that's the legal way to do it.  Effectively, the obstacles in the way of the gun-banners and gun-grabbers are so immense as to be virtually insurmountable - from a legal and constitutional perspective, anyway.  That's why so many gun-grabbers are trying to pass laws at the local and state level that 'fly under the radar' in constitutional terms, because they aren't nationally applicable.

Of course, if they can pass such laws in enough cities and states, they'll have effectively superimposed local control over the national constitution - prima facie illegal, but by then, who's going to argue?  That's one thrust of their current agenda.  The other is to have President Obama enact as many restrictions as possible by means of executive orders.  These may be more or less legal.  It'll take years to challenge them all, and all the local and state laws, and get those challenges to the Supreme Court . . . and by then, given a few retirements or deaths among the present Justices, who knows whether another liberal/progressive President may not have been able to appoint enough new judges of his own ilk to override stare decisis and eviscerate the Second Amendment?

I'm pretty sure that's their game plan.  Remember it in 2016 when you cast your vote.



Anonymous said...

The progs have been in the 'gun control' business for better than 45 years that I know of. Probably covertly longer than that (NFA '34?). They are nothing if not patient although the hysteria that they have been exhibiting of late shows that patience is wearing thin and they are getting more desperate to finalize their plans for total control of the country.

Toastrider said...

The problem the progs have is that every time they manage to push through a local or state law, it gets jumped on by SAF or Calguns or some other outfit.

I'm not saying there's no danger, and the prospect of President Momjeans picking out a new SCOTUS judge worries the hell out of me. But the situation isn't as dire as it was 20 years ago.

This of course doesn't mean we should let up in the slightest. Let Conan's advice be your guide -- crush them, drive them before you, and hear the lamentation of their women. Keep pounding away.

Honestly, with the advent of 3D printing, gun control laws are now on ICU life support. We may yet live to see a day where such laws are pointless, because anyone can fabricate a firearm cheaply.

Wraith said...

My apologies for the language at this link, but I'm with Mike 'Cold Fury' Hendrix on this.

We're done trying to reason with idiots. We're no longer going to entertain the notion that our God-given human rights are in any way up for debate. We're keeping our guns, and that's the final word.

There comes a time to stand firm, and that time is now. I'd advise the gun-grabbers to just shut up and slink away quietly...because they're fixing to start something they can't finish.

Differ said...

The weak link is ammunition. A prohibitive tax or other restrictions will make it hard for the majority of gun owners to exercise their 2A rights. Politicians will happily sign away that part as the low info crowd will be persuaded "arms" only means the gun.

Erik said...

Another possible weak link is environmental. They'll use environmental issues to limit ranges and places to shoot. They can do this in multiple ways, trying to restrict lead in ammunition, require ranges to sanitize lead in the berms, place more and more restriction on berms and backstops (how to build them, what to put in them, etc. They can also use noise complaints to limit where ranges can be built, and possibly even force some ranges to close down if there are houses too close.
All of it will restrict availability of where to shoot, and raise costs of ranges to be prohibitive for a lot of people.

This is one of the tactics they use in Europe, and it can be pretty effective since there's usually no laws needed, the local EPA or zoning commision can just add regulations. Sometimes all it takes is one beurocrat to make a decision, and force shooters into a long and expensive legal battle to either comply or get it overturned.

I've seen cases of similar type in the US, and I'd be amazed if that doesn't pick up more and more. To them it's just a very tempting way to impose de facto shooting bans under the radar.