The new administration has promised to be more "friendly" to our rights. Right now, its still a promise, nothing more.
There are many ways to knock down a wall of bricks. You can ram your head against it, until one of you gives up, or you can chip away the mortar and shove the bricks down.
You can do it in a moment if you have a wrecking ball (we don't). We know the foundation is flawed, but the wall itself is still pretty sturdy.
We know the wall is in the wrong place, but the trouble is, a lot of people believe that the wall protects them, and even though they may agree its was built wrong, they don't want it torn down.
Another trouble is that public opinion has been
trained for
generations that machine guns are not like other guns, and not for ordinary folk.
I do agree, its our natural right, but none of our rights is absolute, and we compromise every day in some way or other. "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" for one example.
One of my friends, as staunch a personal rights supporter as you are likely to run across, and who does support the right to arms, would be against allowing machineguns to be owned and sold like other firearms. We had this discussion decades ago. She agrees, they are our right, BUT there are "just too many crazies in the world" so we need restrictive control. As she put it, "I would trust YOU with one, but not everyone else".
I think you will find some variant of that attitude among a lot of people who fully support the rest of our right to keep and bear arms.
In other words, don't expect everyone who supports a national carry system "like drivers licenses" to support "putting machine guns on the street" (and that's likely one of the least inflammatory "headlies" the other side will call it.
Hi! I'm taking a poll, do you support putting cheap legal machine guns in the hands of drug dealers, thieves and rapists on our streets?"
(this isn't as close to sarcasm as it might seem)
I think this is too much, too soon, I think its the wrong tactic, and I think it has the risk of strengthening that "wall" WHEN it fails.
If you want the wall gone (and we do) the way to do that is show & convince the contractor it doesn't meet code, and they will tear it down. (what they will build as a replacement is a different matter...)
Study the
Miller case, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that essentially the court said "we have been shown no evidence" disputing the Govt. case. That evidence DOES exist. IF we can get a current high court to see that evidence, they should rule the earlier court ruling invalid.
OF course, that also depends on who is on that court and if they see the law the way we do, or if they have an agenda to see it differently.
Which is why the people the new administration will, eventually, add to the court is such a vital matter.
Looking at the petition site, I do wonder, it appears that, assuming they get the required number of signatures, that it is going to be submitted to the White House.
The President can suggest, maybe order the matter pursued, but cannot legally do anything to change existing law. Congress can. The Supreme Court can, in a limited sense (declare void), but the Executive can't. Why are they petitioning them??
