silvermane_1
New member
Exactly there P5 Guy, Red Coat Law is appropriate name for these types laws.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Danger of Red Flag Laws Illlustrated
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Lest we forget that that NRA was in favor of unconstitutional "red flag" laws.
Everything in lobbying occurs in an environment, a milieu. If the environment includes a freight train of mass and momentum in favor of extremely egregious red flag laws, including massive public support; a response and countering strategy of profoundly reducing its effect by changes levels of burden of proof,is not a bad strategy at all. The alternative was to let the other side have the ball and the game.
This was not some close issue. Same with Trump on bumpstocks. letting Feinstein and her anything that makes any gun fire faster was profoundly more egregious.
When the choices are bad or worse it is not a mistake to chose bad.
silvermane_1
New member
*sigh* You are missing the point, unconstitutional is "unconstitutional", now you can offer all the "rationales/mental gymnastics" you like, but at the end of the day the choice was a "crap sandwich" vs. a "crap sandwich w/cheese & bacon", they're both "crap sandwiches".Everything in lobbying occurs in an environment, a milieu. If the environment includes a freight train of mass and momentum in favor of extremely egregious red flag laws, including massive public support; a response and countering strategy of profoundly reducing its effect by changes levels of burden of proof,is not a bad strategy at all. The alternative was to let the other side have the ball and the game.
This was not some close issue. Same with Trump on bumpstocks. letting Feinstein and her anything that makes any gun fire faster was profoundly more egregious.
When the choices are bad or worse it is not a mistake to chose bad.
Silvermane1 said:*sigh* You are missing the point, unconstitutional is "unconstitutional", now you can offer all the "rationales/mental gymnastics" you like, but at the end of the day the choice was a "crap sandwich" vs. a "crap sandwich w/cheese & bacon", they're both "crap sandwiches
TDL, didn't miss the point, but stated the pertinent point well.
How exactly do you apply your stated standard that unconstitutional is "constitutional" in the context of an overwhelming political pressure to enact something? Do you effectively resign from the political process by refusing to influence imperfect measures, or do you participate so as to reduce the harm of malicious political pressure? In the context of the 1994 AWB, pressing for a 20 round magazine limit may not meet your standard, but including it would have mitigated some of the harm. In the context of hysterical proposals to ban semi-autos or magazine fed rifles, something as unprincipled as regulating bumpfire stocks can reduce the political pressure that can do greater damage.
That doesn't mean that every fight calls for mere mitigation of harm by diffusing pressure. Mitch McConnell's refusal to give Garland a hearing without granting any of the compromises some of the wets called for worked well. He had the power and the numbers to make it work.
That doesn't make a bad red flag law any more constitutional. It means that people who call for attenuated forms of the passion of the day may have made a judgement call rather than simply misunderstood what is or is not constitutional.
In the context of the 1994 AWB, pressing for a 20 round magazine limit may not meet your standard, but including it would have mitigated some of the harm.
Which is what Bill Ruger tried to do and has been vilified by the under informed for it, ever since, and still is, despite his passing many years ago.
People "blame" him for proposing a 10rnd limit, wrongly thinking that various congressmen hadn't thought of a mag capacity limit beforehand. They had, and they were locked in an argument amongst themselves whether the limit should be 7 rounds, or 6!!! It was a political certainty that something was going to be passed. Ruger's 10rnd suggestion gave them something they would agree on, so the limit wasn't even LESS!!
So, yes, there have been times when someone on "our" side does toss a baby off the sleigh to slow the wolves. We should have to, but until such time as either the wolves go away or we're allowed to shoot them, what else is to be done??
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
To highlight Zukiphile’s point, many people considered the “sunset” provision of the 1994 ban to be a betrayal by NRA. Those people believe that without a sunset provision, enough legislators would have refused to vote for the bill.
Knowing what I know now, I think that would be a really foolish bet to take. I’d bet that the bill would have passed just fine and we’d still be worrying about whether or not the muzzle device on our rifles was a “flash hider” or “muzzle brake.’
Knowing what I know now, I think that would be a really foolish bet to take. I’d bet that the bill would have passed just fine and we’d still be worrying about whether or not the muzzle device on our rifles was a “flash hider” or “muzzle brake.’
that sounds an awful lot like death by a thousand cuts but at least we get to pick the knife used.Which is what Bill Ruger tried to do and has been vilified by the under informed for it, ever since, and still is, despite his passing many years ago.
People "blame" him for proposing a 10rnd limit, wrongly thinking that various congressmen hadn't thought of a mag capacity limit beforehand. They had, and they were locked in an argument amongst themselves whether the limit should be 7 rounds, or 6!!! It was a political certainty that something was going to be passed. Ruger's 10rnd suggestion gave them something they would agree on, so the limit wasn't even LESS!!
So, yes, there have been times when someone on "our" side does toss a baby off the sleigh to slow the wolves. We should have to, but until such time as either the wolves go away or we're allowed to shoot them, what else is to be done??
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Talking with legislators, they get a feeling they need to “do something” to win the approval of voters back home. If enough of them feel that way, gun control is going to pass whether you like it or not.
At that point, you want to do what you can to protect law-abiding citizens and let the politician look like he is supporting what the people back home want.
This is a huge reason why we must stay engaged and communicative with our elected representatives. I’ve worked in both federal and state governments as a lawyer and I know what it looks like to see the sausage being made. I’ve sat in a room with a U.S. Congressman I totally believed was our hero and was just brutally disabused of that notion. He has still remained a stalwart 2A defender though... not because he gives a crap about it but because he thinks he needs to do that to get reelected - and he does need to do that as the people of his district regularly remind him.
Having worked in that system, I can understand why people do not feel like their opinion matters. They don’t get feedback, so they don’t know. But, their opinion is SO important.
At that point, you want to do what you can to protect law-abiding citizens and let the politician look like he is supporting what the people back home want.
This is a huge reason why we must stay engaged and communicative with our elected representatives. I’ve worked in both federal and state governments as a lawyer and I know what it looks like to see the sausage being made. I’ve sat in a room with a U.S. Congressman I totally believed was our hero and was just brutally disabused of that notion. He has still remained a stalwart 2A defender though... not because he gives a crap about it but because he thinks he needs to do that to get reelected - and he does need to do that as the people of his district regularly remind him.
Having worked in that system, I can understand why people do not feel like their opinion matters. They don’t get feedback, so they don’t know. But, their opinion is SO important.
not because he gives a crap about it but because he thinks he needs to do that to get reelected - and he does need to do that as the people of his district regularly remind him.
Common thread that applies to just about everybody in congress and in the WH..unfortunately..zero 'courage of their convictions'..IMHO..
Jim Watson
New member
Talking with legislators, they get a feeling they need to “do something” to win the approval of voters back home.
Not just gun control, they think that they must pass laws to be seen as doing their jobs. So many laws are oppressive or ineffective, I think that legislative gridlock is the preferred condition.