Montana governor supports AWB

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...nor-says-he-would-support-assault-weapons-ban

1. Speculation he wants to pass the party litmus test to run for President. Both parties have anti liberty litmus tests if you want to run.

2. Such bans are becoming popular since lower and SCOTUS decisions have opened the door such being constitutional.

3. More rampages and moral panics will produce even more bans unless SCOTUS and Congress take some action (fat chance of that). Even with a 'gun friendly' court, I'd bet they don't take action that eliminates the common state bans. Could be wrong, time will tell.

4. Even guns for self-defense being protected may not cover EBRs and high cap mags. After all, if you can't do it in 5, you ain't doing your job. Now who says that? Don't need those weapons of war for your burglar or mugger. Defense against tyranny - not an issue for many.
 
I do NOT support gun bans.

In about a 10 minute interview North Dakota Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp talked about a LOT of issues and then mentioned she did NOT support gun bans because they would not work and she was raked over the coals by her own party!

Sheesh! As has been stated this gun banning thing is certainly an issue this election cycle.

The intricacies of our legal system confuse me on a semi-regular bases. I sure wasn't for the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and I am CERTAINLY APPRECIATIVE that the DOJ said it didn't have any noticeable effect on 'gun violence'

BUT

Since we've ALREADY had a 10 year ban, how do we now say that another ban is unconstitutional? I would TOTALLY like such a ruling but it seems inconsistent---of course if it hasn't already become obvious I admit to not being very legally literate. And I DO appreciate the efforts a lot of folk make right here to dumb down and explain the system.
 
OK. I was an idiot in my previous post. Somebody set me straight and reminded me of stuff I should have remembered.

Lots of 'laws' in lots of different areas, not just gun control, are 'illegal'. The rulings and appeals can work their way up to the Supreme Court and the SC can say "this law is illegal". The 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban was never appealed up to the SC. It might have been 'legal' it might not have been. I should have remembered this.

New gun bans may be enacted. They can be appealed. If they get up to the SC we'll find out if they are legal or not.

I shouldn't say you need legal training to understand this and I should not have forgotten how this works. I still appreciate folk on this site that attempt to explain legal system.
 
thought it was still part of the United States of America.
Click to expand...
...you mean the part that hasn't been "fundamentally transformed" ?

Never underestimate the fundamental damage that (fairly recent) elections
of out-of-control movements can permanently inflict upon this nation.
 
Since I am not a resident of MT, but know a lot of MT residents, I ask is there even a chance an AWB will ever come to his desk for a signature? I believe the makeup is primarily republican and gun friendly; of course this can change. I have been told that some large cities are turning more liberal, but not all.

Also, the gov isn't too smart in my opinion. Even if he is for an AWB, he has zero chance in the day-and-age to become a presidential candidate for the dem party. Even with the idea he likes an AWB, he is way too moderate for the dems.
 
The big reason outspoken support of gun control is popular is because politics is expensive, runs on donors, and Bloomberg will:

1) Show you extensive polling on how this will help you get reelected.
2) Give you money to adopt gun control planks.

Take away the money and gun control will return to its 2004-2008 status where the Brady Campaign had no money to give and “blue dog” Dems were welcomed by the national party.

As far as SCOTUS goes, they’ve already held the Second Amendment applies to the states in McDonald. So, if it violates the Second Amendment at the federal level, it likely violates it at the state level.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
As far as SCOTUS goes, they’ve already held the Second Amendment applies to the states in McDonald. So, if it violates the Second Amendment at the federal level, it likely violates it at the state level.
Click to expand...
To what does "it" in the above refer? Gun control? AWBs? If you mean AWBs, remember that several states enacted AWBs in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. Pro-2A groups in both Connecticut and New York sued to rescind the respective AWBs. Both lost in federal district court, both groups appealed, and the appeals were consolidated. Both pro-2A groups lost on appeal in circuit court, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the circuit court ruling. So, currently, it appears that AWBs are not violations of the Second Amendment, according to the federal courts.

I happen to think this is due to a misreading and misapplication of some of Justice Scalia's language from Heller, but that's neither here nor there. The result is that you can't buy an "assault weapon" in New York or Connecticut.
 
I have been told that some large cities are turning more liberal, but not all.
Click to expand...

Just like NV and CO, CA liberal elites have been buying lots of property in these states and turning them purple with the goal of turning them blue
 
To what does "it" in the above refer? Gun control? AWBs?
Click to expand...

It refers to legislation, generically. If it violates the Second Amendment at the federallevel, it applies to the states.

As to the rest of your reasoning, when Heller happened in 2007, an overwhelming majority of Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the Second only protected a collective right. The Supreme Court denied cert on that for about 80 years. We are fighting a long game. My grandfather was 27 when it started and except for the 1986 FOPA, he saw nothing but defeat his entire 90 years.

I’ve seen more pro-Second advances in the last 20 years than he saw in nine decades.*

*To be fair, a big part of that is equal application of the law. There were a lot of things that were illegal based on the law as written, that were never applied to my grandfather because he wasn’t who those laws were aimed at. I enjoy better rights on paper. Practically, it isn’t the same; but now those laws are applied much more evenly than they were in my grandfather’s day - and I think that’s a positive trait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top