Gavin ([info]selfishgene) wrote,
@ 2008-07-16 05:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
AWB2 : Bigger Badder and Uncut
In the wake of my successful predictions regarding Heller and the financial meltdown, I am venturing on another prediction. As with my other predictions I don't see unlikely events far into the future. I am simply stating what should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
Heller was not an unqualified success for gun rights. In fact it was a nearly unmitigated disaster. It is true that some limit has been placed on gun laws but its a very minor limit. It was previously possible to believe that some future Supreme Court decision would deem the words 'shall not be infringed' to have actual meaning. This is now impossible, even though the court has recognized some minimal individual right. However governments can restrict that right to almost any level, provided it isn't a complete ban. In practice this means obstacles can be raised to any height, as long as a few determined people manage to overcome them.

On to the prediction : Once Obama has been enthroned and anointed with holy oil, Congress will enact the next major gun law. This law will be worse than the old assault weapons ban by a long way. It will not amount to a total ban on all guns but it will :
1. Ban magazines over 10 rounds
2. Ban 50 caliber rifles (already law in CA)
3. Restrict private modification of weapons
4. Ban selling guns without a FFL (no private sales at all)
5. Restrict buying ammo without a license for that type of ammo (this is law in many countries)
6. Ban transporting guns across state lines, even in your own vehicle, without a federal license
7. Require all state databases of CCW to be linked to federal databases
8. Sundry other restrictions which my mind is not perverse enough to think up, but which Congress can imagine.
Gun rights activists have been complacent lately because they have won a few trifling victories. Their enemy has already surrounded them while they were sleeping.
The reason the gun grabbers are quiet now is because they need to win the election for Obama. They don't want millions of apathetic Republicans to suddenly wake up and head to the polls in November. This post is not a call to vote for Republicans, it won't help and its too late anyway. This election will be about financial fears and in a minor way about foreign policy. Gun rights are not on the agenda at all and nothing is going to put them there.
If the situation is hopeless why am I writing this? Simply so you can buy gun stuff now. If there is anything you were thinking of buying at some point then get it now. Stock up with as much ammo as you can afford. If you are planning to sell some surplus guns do it now before you need to pay a $50 fee for each sale.



(Post a new comment)


[info]pasquin
2008-07-16 12:31 pm UTC (link)
I just hope this is as good a prediction as mine that Obama will lose in a landslide.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hodja
2008-07-16 02:19 pm UTC (link)
It cannot be, for obvious reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]pasquin
2008-07-16 02:41 pm UTC (link)
Which is why it's funny, for obvious reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]hawver
2008-07-16 02:58 pm UTC (link)
Yep, all that sounds about right. Not going to affect me that much since I live in Chicago anyways , and if you think Daley is going to let people actually have gun permits you are crazy.

(Reply to this)


[info]philautos
2008-07-16 04:18 pm UTC (link)
I don't think you're right about this one. The court in Heller decided as little as it had to--which is not a bad judicial practice. Since it was faced with a ban that violated any notion, however weak, individual right to bear arms, it said that however weakly we interpret it, there is an individual right and this law has to go. It opened the way for a lot more litigation to determine what the actual scope of the right is going to be.

Nor can I agree with you about governments being able to restrict rights to "almost any level, provided it isn't a complete ban." There is still much greater freedom of speech in this country than in most others, largely because of judicial protection, even though that judicial protection does not extend as far as I think it should.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]selfishgene
2008-07-16 08:17 pm UTC (link)
Speak to me at the end of 2009. We shall see whose prediction fared better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]philautos
2008-07-16 08:51 pm UTC (link)
That's not enough time. I'm sure a wide variety of restrictive legislation will continue to be passed. To see what the Court will do, however, will take years.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rjlippincott
2008-07-16 10:11 pm UTC (link)
I've been wrong before, but I think this will turn out to be a positive first step.

I keep thinking of href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States" target="schenck">Schenck v. United States.

It would seem to be a bad decision, allowing the restriction of speech when it presents a "clear and present danger." But the interesting thing is to read the actual paper that Schenck wrote...read this terrible script...by today's standards, it's tame.

It may take a while, but like Schenck what we may well see is a loosening in other areas so that while the restrictions technically remain...what is accepted is expanded in definition.

And nobody even notices as time passes.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…