Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Insane Proposal of the Day 4/2/18 >

Insane Proposal of the Day 4/2/18

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Insane Proposal of the Day 4/2/18

Old 04-03-2018, 01:59 PM
  #11  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Ditto what Hunters Life said. Very logical and well said.

As for Debbie Big Mouth's tactical error, she blew it big time and so did ole John Paul Stevens. Yes, the antis got some PR assistance from the kids in Florida but this is not what they wanted out in the public domain. This kind of stupidity wipes out any gains the Dems were looking at with David Hogg's help. Trump outmaneuvered the Dems on the DACA stuff and pretty much made it ineffective for the November elections. Now Debbie Big Mouth and john Paul Stevens are letting the cat out of the bag and screwing up gun control as a viable issue for November. Yes, the Dems will still try to make both issues pivotal for November but they screwed up on both issues and pretty much blew their chance for making any big changes in November.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 04-03-2018, 02:02 PM
  #12  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,858
Default

Causing ammo to become scarce was tried before and certainly limits gun owners ability to use their weapons. I always expect that facet of the anti attack on our ability to use guns.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 04-03-2018, 05:04 PM
  #13  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default

I dunno, Alsatian might have a good point, especially with a liberal judge! We have a right to bear "arms," maybe not so much to have ammo and actually be able to shoot them! Let's hope not!

Remember, we have to read the fine print in any bill submitted! The last time they tried to ban "armor piercing ammo?"
Their definition of armor was not as in an "Abrams Tank armor," it was bullet proof vest armor! Virtually any high powered rifle ammo is capable of piercing vest armor!
JagMagMan is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 04:43 AM
  #14  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,884
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
Shultz articulated her strategy very succinctly. She said the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't protect the rights to keep bullets or cartridges. I think that is potentially a solid argument. Thus, it seems arguable to me that private ownership of cartridges, bullets, cartridge cases, and powder could be outlawed without running afoul of the second amendment.
I vaguely remember a case years ago (10 years maybe) where this was argued in court. The court found ammo covered by the 2nd. It wasn't the SCOTUS though. But I do believe there is a precedent on the books.
flags is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 05:48 AM
  #15  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,340
Default

The bill is H. R. 5383 and it's going nowhere. Waserman-Schultz is pandering to her anti-gun base.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr5383/text


That proposed bill is already having an effect here: Bubba is buying up ammo. Academy usually has a very good supply of .22 LR ammo. Yesterday the shelves were nearly bare.


Keep an open mind about this gun control stuff. While folks on gun boards were ranting about "liberals"; the "conservative" governments of Florida and Vermont passed serious gun control laws.

Last edited by falcon; 04-04-2018 at 05:57 AM.
falcon is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 08:24 AM
  #16  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,422
Default

Black's Law Dictionary defines "firearm" as "A weapon that expels a projectile (such as a bullet or pellets) by the combustion of gunpowder or other explosive."

The argument would be that it's not a firearm if it can't do this.

Let me elaborate. The second amendment refers to "arms." It's obvious that "arms" means firearms. Therefore the "arms" that we have a right to "keep and bear" would have to be able to expel a projectile...etc. So banning ammo would be an infringement.

My concern is that there are so many infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, that it's difficult to argue against new ones based on the second amendment.

Last edited by cr422; 04-04-2018 at 10:17 AM.
cr422 is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 11:05 AM
  #17  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,804
Default

Originally Posted by cr422 View Post
Black's Law Dictionary defines "firearm" as "A weapon that expels a projectile (such as a bullet or pellets) by the combustion of gunpowder or other explosive."

The argument would be that it's not a firearm if it can't do this.

But you miss the point . . . the firearm CAN do this. My .30-06 in my rifle cabinet CAN expel a projective, independently of whether I do or do not have ammunition ready to hand. The word "CAN," according to my construction of the term, speaks to the potential to do something. A firearm without cartridges nevertheless retains the potential to perform as a firearm.


But your argument and my argument are beside the point. This would be determined by a court of law, not by you and I. The reason I am nervous is because there are definitely cases (I'm not speaking of 2nd amendment case, but cases generally) that have been decided by the Supreme Court where the court has made a decision that I strongly feel flies in the face of logic and reason.


Here's hoping Flags is right, that a precedent has been established that ammunition too is protected by the second amendment. I agree, logically it SHOULD be protected by the second amendment, and for reasons you advance. I just don't think logic is determinative of all court decisions, regrettably.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 11:28 AM
  #18  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,884
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
Here's hoping Flags is right, that a precedent has been established that ammunition too is protected by the second amendment.
Do you doubt the Chief? Note the following:

Appellate Court Affirms Unconstitutionality of California Ammunition Controls

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2013

On November 6, California's Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision invalidating a California law that threatened to limit access to, and compel recordkeeping for, ammunition sales....
And

Washington D.C. Ammunition Ban Violates Second Amendment

NOVEMBER 8, 2010

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has declared D.C.ís ammunition possession ban unconstitutional in the case of Herrington v. District of Columbia....
So there are 2 precedent cases right off the bat with one coming from the DC Appeals Court which is directly below the SCOTUS in seniority in ruling on cases.
flags is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:57 PM
  #19  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,422
Default

You would have to read the opinions in order to know why they ruled the way they did. The Supremes would be unlikely to take the case unless another appeals court ruled the other way.
cr422 is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 05:08 PM
  #20  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default

Originally Posted by Alsatian View Post
Here's hoping Flags is right, that a precedent has been established that ammunition too is protected by the second amendment. I agree, logically it SHOULD be protected by the second amendment, and for reasons you advance. I just don't think logic is determinative of all court decisions, regrettably.
Liberalism and Washington DC are highly allergic to "logic!"

But in this case I believe that we do have strong precedent to stand on! Let's never underestimate the opposition though! Just as you can't "fix" stupid, it is hard to defend against too! You just never know where it's going to pop up!
JagMagMan is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.