So We Have That To Look Forward To

Hillary Clinton lays out some of her gun control agenda.
Her proposals include extending the instant background checks indefinitely by changing the amount of time the FBI has on extended checks. She also wants to place new regulations on sales at gun shows and for guns sold online, and she wants to expand the definition of domestic violence to include dating relationships, then use that expanded definition to ban individuals from owning guns.

Breitbart News previously reported that Clinton also wants to change our nation’s laws to allow shooting victims and their families to sue gun manufacturers... [t]his action alone would drive gun prices through the roof as gun manufacturers seek ways to raise money to cover court costs incurred via lawsuit after lawsuit when criminals misuse guns. It would eventually drive gun manufacturers into bankruptcy and, finally, into oblivion.
This is just a start. The most important thing for her will be getting a Supreme Court Justice who will overturn Heller, and rule instead that the 2nd Amendment only protects state-run militias and nothing else.

So, the future looks like an end to the gun manufacturing industry, an end to the legal right to keep and bear arms, and an unrestricted right for any ex-girlfriend to send the police to rob you of your arms.

Well, you should be careful whom you date anyway, I suppose: the most important quality in a potential mate is good moral character. Likewise, domestic violence really is a serious problem. Nevertheless, that's a tremendous weight to put on a wholly informal relationship, with no due process beyond her being willing to give a sworn statement against you.

15 comments:

raven said...

Ok, so she gets elected and loads the SC with left wing activists who decide everything we like to do is illegal.

Now it is one thing to declare some moral failing to be illegal, when nearly all agree it is harmful- among these of course are all the traditional failings like theft, assault, etc.

It is quite another to make something illegal that 1/3rd of this country passionately believes in as a God given right.

In short, she will dealing with an enormous number of very highly motivated, educated and creative who produce about 90% of the stuff this country runs on.
Try a national strike of every gun owner in the country and see how quick this ship of fools hits the reef.
There are many gun owners wearing suits, but there are damned few leftists wearing coveralls. All those mechanics and welders and truck drivers are going to be hard to replace.

That is just a leading edge. I don't think she has a clue how pissed off a large portion of this country is- maybe she has been manufacturing false outrage for so long she no longer can spot the real thing.


MikeD said...

Once again, if she gets her way, and effectively guts the Second Amendment, I think she's going to find herself with a revolution on her hands. The People have made their feelings known on this issue over and over again, but inside the Beltway, they just hear their echo chamber. And unlike so many of the social issues where good people can disagree, this one literally signals to citizens "if you do not stop this, it is a short road to dictatorship". Liberals should fear this, but seem oblivious to the danger.

E Hines said...

Nevertheless, that's a tremendous weight to put on a wholly informal relationship, with no due process beyond her being willing to give a sworn statement against you.

Still, that's an improvement over the Department of Education's Dear Colleague letter that lets female students accuse without a sworn statement, and then appeal acquittals until she gets the verdict she wants.

The Clinton proposal also puts a premium on leaving behind no live exes.

Eric Hines

raven said...

Suppose there are unintended consequences?

For example, suppose the day after the SCOTUS issues a decision affirming the Second Amendment only guarantees arms for Militia, the State of Texas issues a order confirming every competent person 18 to 60 as a member of the Militia, and asks for volunteers to report for training with arms two weeks a year, and starts forming light infantry units? Recent retired combat vets can instruct and receive a salary from the state.

Those persons would have to pass a basic background check, and supply their own personal weapons, conforming to standard US systems. In the event they are not able on financial grounds, equipment will be supplied to them, including an M-4 rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo. Each person shall keep and maintain their equipment at home, like the Swiss.
A Texas State Armory can be established to manufacture small arms like machine guns, mortars,light anti tank and anti aircraft missiles etc. All standard "militia" equipment.
As a side benefit, the State would end up with a nice border patrol.

MikeD said...

Nice idea, raven. Problem is, that's bloody expensive.

Grim said...

Money well spent.

Mr. Hines:

Still, that's an improvement over the Department of Education's Dear Colleague letter that lets female students accuse without a sworn statement, and then appeal acquittals until she gets the verdict she wants.

Anonymously, even. I suppose that's next. "What do you mean, domestic violence? We were never even dating!" "She says you were." "That's not true at all." "Victims have a right to be believed, sir."

E Hines said...

[S]uppose the day after the SCOTUS issues a decision affirming the Second Amendment only guarantees arms for Militia, the State of Texas issues a order confirming every competent person 18 to 60 as a member of the Militia....

Oddly, Texas already has a State Militia, wholly separate from the militia known as the National Guard, and the State Militia cannot be Federalized: it's solely under the Governor's command. Around 24 States have their own State Militias, including, for instance, Georgia.

Texas' is unarmed and currently handles shelter management during natural disasters (like its performance with New Orleans refugees in the aftermath of Katrina), but there's not a single thing that prevents it from becoming an armed militia.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Indeed, Georgia's unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 not subject to other military orders. But it was ruled by a Federal court not to be sufficiently "well organized" to be eligible for 2nd Amendment protections in 1997 in US v. Wright.

So that won't get you anywhere either: The state would have to actively take part in organizing and running a militia for the courts to consider it eligible for 2A protections, like Raven is suggesting. Merely passing a law establishing a militia won't get it done.

Tom said...

US law is that every able-bodied male from 17-45 is part of the unorganized militia. Women in the Guard are as well (or maybe women in the reserves; I forget).

I don't see a problem with mandating individuals purchase their own gear; that's how the militia worked for a long, long time. If individuals truly could not afford it, then unarmed roles might be assigned, or a state armory that loaned weapons out for training days. If you rotate training days, you don't need that many weapons. Or, just make it voluntary.

E Hines said...

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Georgia's State Militia is fully organized.

My reading of the 11th Circuit's opinion (I can't readily find the trial court's ruling) is that the court found against Wright based on his misinterpretation of the role of Georgia's SDF and/or his role in it, not that the SDF itself was not organized enough.

Eric Hines

E Hines said...

Also, Georgia's unorganized militia is distinct from Georgia's State Militia/State Defense Force.

Eric Hines

raven said...

Any of you familiar with the Miller case that upheld the 1934 NFA ? IIRC they ruled against Miller precisely because his weapon, a sawn off shotgun, was found to be unsuitable for military use, and therefore not protected by the second amendment, which according to the SC ruling only applied to arms in common military service. If this is the case, it would seem to be completely contradictory to more recent acts banning production of new machine guns for private sale, not withstanding the tax issue- in 1934 the $200 tax was effectively a prohibition on all but the very wealthy.
Any insight on this?

Eric Blair said...

I've read bits of the US Code that refer to case law going back to the 1870's, essentially saying the same thing, along the lines of "your truncheon or brass knuckles or bowie knife aren't really the weapons of the militia, (specfically enumarted at as the rifle-musket and bayonet, or the saber, pistol and carbine, or the cannon or howitzer, curiously enough). And that you can't claim 2nd Amendment protection when the Sheriff was arresting you for being drunk and disorderly in that saloon."

Grim said...

Mr Hines:

The unorganized militia is, as you say, not the State Defense Force. The SDF is fully organized, but is required to be disarmed at all times while on duty. So it's Catch-22: in order to qualify for arms under the new, improved reading of the 2A, you have to be an organized state militia. But if you're organized by the state, they'll want you disarmed.

Ordinary people will have no right to arms under the interpretation of the 2A they're going to push on us over the next few years.

E Hines said...

Grim:

The SDF's armament status is a Georgia choice; there's nothing in the Federal legislation authorizing States to have SDFs that addresses arming or not.

This isn't an individual 2nd Amendment question except to the extent State law prohibits arming its SDF.

Eric Hines