HR-1808 AW ban

RETG said:
Chances of me coming into contact with one of these a-holes is slime, but not impossible even though I am literally no longer the person I was. It could happen, the older i get the less likely.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing for me . Chances I need to use my AR in a self defense situation is slim but sure believe I should have that right should it accrue . Why again are you so damn special and I'm not ?

The question isn't why do retired LEO get to have the guns -full stop . Its why do they and I/we don't ?

We have an approved handgun roster here in CA . It has to do with making sure the guns being sold have the proper safeties to avoid AD when dropped and other reasons like that . However both active and retired LEO are exempt and can buy any gun they want . Does this make sense to anyone . If the none approved guns are so unsafe why are they allowed to be carried everywhere in public by LEO where it's more likely the unsafe-ness of the firearm would be more dangerous to the public . How unsafe is a 5th gen Glock in my safe then one worn on a hip of LEO in schools right at the height of children's heads 40hrs a week 52 weeks a year .
 
Last edited:
t has to do with making sure the guns being sold have the proper safeties to avoid AD when dropped and other reasons like that .
Click to expand...

That's the "party line", the actual conduct of the state in this matter proves what a lie it actually is.

Elitism is the fundamental hypocrisy of gun control. You and I can't have "x" or have to get special permits, training, and pay extra to do so, but other people, who are only different from us in the job that they volunteered for, and get PAID to do, can???

doesn't seem to me to be "equal treatment under the law",,, I know that's the way it is, but that doesn't make it right....
 
Does anyone other than me remember the time before the LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers safety Act) was enacted by the Congress? For those who don't know, the LEOSA allows all active and most retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed handguns in every state of the U.S., without a permit.

When the LEOSA was being debated in Congress, LEOs were out in force on all the "gun" forums, begging us all to write and call our congresscritters and support passage of the law. Their argument then was, "It's a first step. If you'll support getting us national concealed carry, we'll support getting it for everyone else."

The LEOSA was passed. All those LEOs who were going to step up and help the rest of us get national concealed carry? They disappeared. All their support for national reciprocity? Crickets.

Personally, I'm done. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. A few police officers are decent people and know which end of a gun the bullets come out of. Far too many police officers are thugs with uniforms and badges who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. They have an elitist attitude, and they expect to be above the law. They refer to the rest of us as "civilians." THEY are civilians -- but they don't act like it.

There is some logic for allowing police officers to carry a concealed handgun -- even retired police officers. There is NO reason whatsoever why they have any need for any type of long gun that the rest of us aren't allowed to own.
 
I can't come up with the math that makes a former LEOs life more valuable than mine.

In the judiciary committee hearing for this bill there was a great exchange where Massie was trying to figure out why the FDA and Department of Education needed the same weapons that civilians were going to be banned from owning. Nadler mumbled something about the law enforcement branches of each of those departments.
 
It passed the house :-@ ! I’m confused aren’t we pretty sure an AW ban and mag limits are unconstitutional based on Bruin ? Is it different if the Federal government passes the unconstitutional law ?

If passed will someone need to be harmed ( have “standing” ) to sue ? I can’t help but think when we are talking unconstitutional, every citizen has standing the second it passes ?
 
Metal god said:
It passed the house :-@ ! I’m confused aren’t we pretty sure an AW ban and mag limits are unconstitutional based on Bruin ? Is it different if the Federal government passes the unconstitutional law ?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen? That case wasn't about assault weapons, it was about "may issue" carry permits.
 
Passing in the House by 4 votes means very little, really.

Also note that it was the last thing passed before the House went on a 45 day recess....

They probably think most people will have forgotten about it by the time they get back...but some of us, won't....;)
 
AB - the SCOTUS then granted cert to an AW ban case and mag limit restriction case . Vacated them both and sent them back to be considered with there new guide lines . So yes Im talking about the Bruen case to include the newly vacated cases which where vary similar to parts of HR-1808 .
 
Metal god said:
AB - the SCOTUS then granted cert to an AW ban case and mag limit restriction case . Vacated them both and sent them back to be considered with there new guide lines . So yes Im talking about the Bruen case to include the newly vacated cases which where vary similar to parts of HR-1808 .
Click to expand...
You can't "include" other cases with NYSRPA v Bruen. Each case is a distinct case. By attempting to lump them all together, you are just creating confusion.

What are the names of the other cases to which you refer?

Sending those two cases back for reconsideration isn't exactly the same as finding them unconstitutional. It was universally understood that those cases were on hold until the SCOTUS had decided the NYSRPA case. In sending those other cases back, the SCOTUS didn't decide anything. They just told the respective lower courts to reconsider according to the new clarity regarding level of scrutiny that was provided by NYSRPA. Basically, the SCOTUS gave the respective lower courts a Mulligan.
 
Link below said:
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) vacated and remanded a number of cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii.

Among the cases are Bianchi v. Frosh, challenging Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban; Young v. Hawaii, which deals with carry restrictions in Hawaii; and Duncan v. Bonta, which challenges California’s “high capacity” mag ban."
Click to expand...

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615065
 
The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.
 
Are you referring to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen? That case wasn't about assault weapons, it was about "may issue" carry permits.
Click to expand...

While thats true, Justice Thomas defined what test should be used in future cases regarding 2A issues. Paraphrasing… The text of the amendment considering history and tradition at the time of its ratification.

So, it could definitely impact AWB laws. There has already been a Judge in Colorado that issued an injunction to an AWB/Mag ban based on Bruen.

The 3 cases mentioned above, were sent back to the lower courts BECAUSE the lower courts didnt use that test when they upheld those cases. All of those cases used a 2 step test. The second part of those tests was the “needs of society”. Thats OUT now.

What does the 2nd amendment SAY and what did the founders intend it to protect. That is easy to examine though the letters and correspondence between the founders.
 
The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Maybe. It depends on who sits on the bench at that time. SCOTUS has proven itself a political creature - if ever it wasn’t. Overturning Roe tells the anti-gunners precedent is only as meaningful as who sits on the bench.

I think it matters that these bills be voted down in Congress. Can not rely on a SCOTUS whose members are not immortal and that is largely insulated from the consequences of their actions.

Edit: The House did pass the bill.
 
I agree We don’t wanna count on the Supreme Court . However the supreme court after Bruen granted cert for those three other cases ( AW ban , carry case and mag restriction case ) and vacated them then sent them back down for reconsideration under their new guidelines . That seemed like a much bigger step of enforcing their ruling then I believe ever happened after McDonald or Heller . It seems at least as the court sits now they are ready to enforce/defend as much as they legally can their Bruen decision .
 
Spats McGee said:
The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

They've also built a big severability clause into it:

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
Click to expand...

It might take numerous court battles to overturn it piecemeal, and that costs time and money. They can wear us down through attrition.
 
November elections are only 90 days from now.

The House has just gone on a 45 day recess. About half that period.

The Senate is under no obligation to bring the matter to the floor prior to the elections.

The matter may not be taken up until after the mid-terms, which could result in a very different environment thereafter.
 
I'd like to assume this never had/s a chance of passing the senate . My expectations are that this was for politics only . The house members that voted for it can now say . We did what we could BUT the senate pro NRA gun lovers refused to act because they hate children lol . OK maybe not exactly that but you get the point . This was for the mid terms IMHO . How it works out for them who knows .
 
OK maybe not exactly that but you get the point
Click to expand...

Actually, I expect a few Representatives to say exactly that. They've been passing these sorts of bills in the House as symbolic (and knowingly futile) gestures for the last few months. They're hoping it makes them look more palatable in the midterms. The timing of this is intentional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top