- Messages
- 12,548
- Reactions
- 18,013
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
National Ten Years after Heller decision, gun rights continue trend toward more freedom, not more gun control
- Thread Starter Joe Link
- Start date
for those that don't want to click
---------
The cornerstone gun-rights decision, Heller v. D.C., the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights is indeed an individual right, has reached its 10th anniversary.
Over the last decade this decision has helped to propel a cultural shift on how guns are viewed in America. Its ramifications have boosted freedom in too many states and in too many ways to list. Nevertheless, its affects are misunderstood.
Given the way that much of the media treats issues related to guns, and given that Heller and the subsequent McDonald decisions were 5-4 votes by the high court (a divide the court likely still holds today), it might seem like common sense to think America is closely divided on this issue.
This is the view CNN, The Washington Post and more are pushing. The left sees the public's acceptance of gun bans and other gun controls as slow but inevitable social change. They think it will follow the same type of public opinion shift that the gay-marriage issue went through.
They are wrong because in this case they are doing the illiberal thing; they are trying to reduce rights and to undo long-held American freedom.
If the left was right about even some of their talking points on guns and violence they might have a chance of deceiving a majority of Americans into voting away their freedom, but they aren't.
The number of homicides in the U.S. has fallen precipitously in America over the last half century as the number of firearms in civilian hands has risen. Most murders today occur in the areas with the strictest gun-control laws.
The left has also gone way off the factual rails in its quest to ban so-called "assault weapons." (I say so-called because there is no definition for "assault weapon" outside of how a particular law defines them.)
In 2000 Al Gore found he miscalculated when he made gun control a central plank in his push for the presidency. It was a position that arguably cost him his home state and with it the election. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake, costing her votes in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest.
As they demonize "scary looking" semiautomatic rifles they miss the basic fact that year after year the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting finds that rifles of all types are used in less than 3 percent of murders.
The anti-gun left also avoids addressing the basic fact that AR-15-type rifles have been sold to U.S. citizens since 1963, the same year the U.S. military adopted the M16. Meanwhile, "mainstream news" reporters don't know or they won't report the fact that semiautomatic rifles have been sold to sportsmen and more since the very early 20th century by companies like Remington and Winchester.
Clearly the problem that a few terrorists and some mentally ill people are attempting, and at times succeeding, to accomplish mass murder isn't the fault of rifles—or of vans and trucks for that matter—but is a more complex problem we need to focus in on to solve as best we can.
The left isn't even right about the so-called "gun lobby."
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers (full disclosure: I've done some contract work for the NSSF), spends a lot of time and resources advocating for gun-safety programs. (I'm not using the term "gun safety" as loosely as gun-control proponents do today, as they use it as a synonym for "gun control"; instead, I am using it as the dictionary defines the terms.)
The NSSF has joined the National Safety Council's designation of June as "National Safety Month," for example, by promoting its "Project Childsafe," its "Own It? Respect it. Secure it." program and other initiatives to try to further reduce accidents and other deaths related to firearms. Such efforts have been working, as the number of accidental deaths is a fraction of what it once was.
People have noticed all this and vote accordingly.
In 2000 Al Gore found he miscalculated when he made gun control a central plank in his push for the presidency. It was a position that arguably cost him his home state and with it the election. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake, which cost her blue collar votes in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest.
Now a decade after the Heller decision pro-gun laws have swept through many states. A dozen states now even have "constitutional" or "permitless" carry for handguns. There are over 100 million gun owners in America and more than 16 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns (up from about 1 million in the mid-1980s). A recent United Nations' Small Arms Survey found that American civilians now have 393 million firearms (46 percent of all of the guns in civilian hands in the world).
Clearly more and more Americans are taking their Second Amendment rights into their own hands.
So no, the cultural shift isn't toward gun control. It is clearly moving toward greater freedom.
---------
The cornerstone gun-rights decision, Heller v. D.C., the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights is indeed an individual right, has reached its 10th anniversary.
Over the last decade this decision has helped to propel a cultural shift on how guns are viewed in America. Its ramifications have boosted freedom in too many states and in too many ways to list. Nevertheless, its affects are misunderstood.
Given the way that much of the media treats issues related to guns, and given that Heller and the subsequent McDonald decisions were 5-4 votes by the high court (a divide the court likely still holds today), it might seem like common sense to think America is closely divided on this issue.
This is the view CNN, The Washington Post and more are pushing. The left sees the public's acceptance of gun bans and other gun controls as slow but inevitable social change. They think it will follow the same type of public opinion shift that the gay-marriage issue went through.
They are wrong because in this case they are doing the illiberal thing; they are trying to reduce rights and to undo long-held American freedom.
If the left was right about even some of their talking points on guns and violence they might have a chance of deceiving a majority of Americans into voting away their freedom, but they aren't.
The number of homicides in the U.S. has fallen precipitously in America over the last half century as the number of firearms in civilian hands has risen. Most murders today occur in the areas with the strictest gun-control laws.
The left has also gone way off the factual rails in its quest to ban so-called "assault weapons." (I say so-called because there is no definition for "assault weapon" outside of how a particular law defines them.)
In 2000 Al Gore found he miscalculated when he made gun control a central plank in his push for the presidency. It was a position that arguably cost him his home state and with it the election. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake, costing her votes in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest.
As they demonize "scary looking" semiautomatic rifles they miss the basic fact that year after year the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting finds that rifles of all types are used in less than 3 percent of murders.
The anti-gun left also avoids addressing the basic fact that AR-15-type rifles have been sold to U.S. citizens since 1963, the same year the U.S. military adopted the M16. Meanwhile, "mainstream news" reporters don't know or they won't report the fact that semiautomatic rifles have been sold to sportsmen and more since the very early 20th century by companies like Remington and Winchester.
Clearly the problem that a few terrorists and some mentally ill people are attempting, and at times succeeding, to accomplish mass murder isn't the fault of rifles—or of vans and trucks for that matter—but is a more complex problem we need to focus in on to solve as best we can.
The left isn't even right about the so-called "gun lobby."
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers (full disclosure: I've done some contract work for the NSSF), spends a lot of time and resources advocating for gun-safety programs. (I'm not using the term "gun safety" as loosely as gun-control proponents do today, as they use it as a synonym for "gun control"; instead, I am using it as the dictionary defines the terms.)
The NSSF has joined the National Safety Council's designation of June as "National Safety Month," for example, by promoting its "Project Childsafe," its "Own It? Respect it. Secure it." program and other initiatives to try to further reduce accidents and other deaths related to firearms. Such efforts have been working, as the number of accidental deaths is a fraction of what it once was.
People have noticed all this and vote accordingly.
In 2000 Al Gore found he miscalculated when he made gun control a central plank in his push for the presidency. It was a position that arguably cost him his home state and with it the election. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake, which cost her blue collar votes in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest.
Now a decade after the Heller decision pro-gun laws have swept through many states. A dozen states now even have "constitutional" or "permitless" carry for handguns. There are over 100 million gun owners in America and more than 16 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns (up from about 1 million in the mid-1980s). A recent United Nations' Small Arms Survey found that American civilians now have 393 million firearms (46 percent of all of the guns in civilian hands in the world).
Clearly more and more Americans are taking their Second Amendment rights into their own hands.
So no, the cultural shift isn't toward gun control. It is clearly moving toward greater freedom.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,460
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 42,766
- Reactions
- 111,061
I disagree.
First, those decisions were federal court.
Second, some states are getting more draconian and restrictive on types of weapons allowed.
Third - just try to get a concealed carry permit or try open carry in California.
Do those decisions help in states like that? Do they let you have semis with mags larger than a capacity of ten?
If California can do that, what is stopping any other state from doing it?
Do you think those decisions would have stopped IP43 when they didn't stop California or Connecticut? How about the initiatives in Washington state?
The anti-gunners understand that the future of gun control momentum is not in federal legislation, but in state legislation - state by state. Once they have enough momentum they can go back to trying national laws - when the time is right and they have the Congress and White House back. Make no mistake, they will get Congress back by 2020, if not 2018, and possibly the White House too. If they get in 2018, Trump will cave if they pass a national gun control measure.
I've been around since 1954, and I have only seen gun control get worse over time, not better.
If Utah or Texas are better individually, that don't help me - I live here, not there. I can't move there - I have a family to take care of here. The best I can do is maybe get legal residency in a free state, but in ten years I probably would have to register most of my guns if I want to keep them here (or WA state) legally. That is worse, not better.
Add to that the percentage of citizens who own guns is decreasing. Ditto with hunting or other shooting sports. This is true simply because more and more people are living in urban areas. Add on top of that the culture changes. Fewer gun owners (as a percentage) means that fewer people really understand both gun tech and other facts (laws, culture, need).
We are a minority and we are increasingly a smaller minority. The majority is against us. We are gradually losing. Do not fool yourselves.
First, those decisions were federal court.
Second, some states are getting more draconian and restrictive on types of weapons allowed.
Third - just try to get a concealed carry permit or try open carry in California.
Do those decisions help in states like that? Do they let you have semis with mags larger than a capacity of ten?
If California can do that, what is stopping any other state from doing it?
Do you think those decisions would have stopped IP43 when they didn't stop California or Connecticut? How about the initiatives in Washington state?
The anti-gunners understand that the future of gun control momentum is not in federal legislation, but in state legislation - state by state. Once they have enough momentum they can go back to trying national laws - when the time is right and they have the Congress and White House back. Make no mistake, they will get Congress back by 2020, if not 2018, and possibly the White House too. If they get in 2018, Trump will cave if they pass a national gun control measure.
I've been around since 1954, and I have only seen gun control get worse over time, not better.
If Utah or Texas are better individually, that don't help me - I live here, not there. I can't move there - I have a family to take care of here. The best I can do is maybe get legal residency in a free state, but in ten years I probably would have to register most of my guns if I want to keep them here (or WA state) legally. That is worse, not better.
Add to that the percentage of citizens who own guns is decreasing. Ditto with hunting or other shooting sports. This is true simply because more and more people are living in urban areas. Add on top of that the culture changes. Fewer gun owners (as a percentage) means that fewer people really understand both gun tech and other facts (laws, culture, need).
We are a minority and we are increasingly a smaller minority. The majority is against us. We are gradually losing. Do not fool yourselves.
- Messages
- 20,330
- Reactions
- 77,078
Nailed it! As we have seen more and more with the current sitting POTUS, the several states seem to have less reguard to the Fed laws, rulings, and executive orders then ever before! And like you point out, what did we gain when a state like Oregon or Cali simply ignore all of it, and even have it's own Fed Justices strike down a decision from SCOTUS? What we lack is accountability in the States, and even in the local communities, we have a attitude from these powers that they will do what ever they want with no repercussions because they know better then every one else what's good for us!
The big question, how to force compliance?
How to force the State A.G, Justices, Governers, mayors, to uphold Law, and executive orders instead of flat declaring them unlawful and ruling from the bench!
I can't wait to see a full accounting on that front!
- Messages
- 42,766
- Reactions
- 111,061
As I said in another thread - "they" are playing the long game. "They" have been playing it for centuries; disarm the populace - just one of the strategies in the game to make the populace less powerful.
- Messages
- 1,447
- Reactions
- 3,149
President Trump may announce his choice for a Supreme Court Justice on July 9. I suggest we all write to him and request that any nominee answer questions such as:
1) Do you support the 2A "as written", including an individuals right to keep and bear arms, and including AR-15 and other military "style" firearms?
2) Is it unconstitutional to ban commonly owned "assault weapons", and mandate gun registration as some states have done recently?
If the candidate does not enthusiastically answer "yes" to both quesions, then keep looking.
I suggested to him that he should consult the NRA on the nominee, and also, if not ready by July 9, to delay until he finds the right person - nothing magic about July 9.
Write him an email here - just takes a couple of minutes:
Contact the White House
1) Do you support the 2A "as written", including an individuals right to keep and bear arms, and including AR-15 and other military "style" firearms?
2) Is it unconstitutional to ban commonly owned "assault weapons", and mandate gun registration as some states have done recently?
If the candidate does not enthusiastically answer "yes" to both quesions, then keep looking.
I suggested to him that he should consult the NRA on the nominee, and also, if not ready by July 9, to delay until he finds the right person - nothing magic about July 9.
Write him an email here - just takes a couple of minutes:
Contact the White House
- Messages
- 12,592
- Reactions
- 28,754
Here's what we know about the two leading contenders:
Brett Kavanaugh - Wrote an opinion saving Obamacare at Circuit level that Roberts substantially copied in his deciding opinion. F*** THAT GUY. Possible SCOTUS Pick Kavanaugh Wrote Roadmap To Save Obamacare If he's gonna suck Oblowme trouserwurst like that, he's unacceptable no matter what else he may get right.
Amy Coney Barrett - Not a lot known, but our discussion on her at RedState: CNN's Chris Cillizza: Trump Is Going To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett Because of Her Image and Appearance
And The Federalist's thoughts on the List of 25: Here's Which People On Trump's List Are Most Likely To Replace Kennedy
Brett Kavanaugh - Wrote an opinion saving Obamacare at Circuit level that Roberts substantially copied in his deciding opinion. F*** THAT GUY. Possible SCOTUS Pick Kavanaugh Wrote Roadmap To Save Obamacare If he's gonna suck Oblowme trouserwurst like that, he's unacceptable no matter what else he may get right.
Amy Coney Barrett - Not a lot known, but our discussion on her at RedState: CNN's Chris Cillizza: Trump Is Going To Nominate Amy Coney Barrett Because of Her Image and Appearance
And The Federalist's thoughts on the List of 25: Here's Which People On Trump's List Are Most Likely To Replace Kennedy
- Messages
- 1,447
- Reactions
- 3,149
I agree his Obamacare position looks bad, BUT if he's VERY strong on the 2A, I'd take him if noone better is available. I think strong 2A must be the litmus test. Trump needs to act slowly, and correctly, to pick the right man so we don't get another John(Obamacare is legal because it's a tax) Roberts. Then, when Trump picks the right man, the congress should instantly ram that guy down the antis throats and into the Supreme Court. Just like they did to us with Obamacare!
- Messages
- 9,381
- Reactions
- 17,958
NC is only still shall issue because our new governor gets in the way of the bill that was brought in at the wrong time. On the other hand, we still have open carry in most areas, except probably Chapel Hill.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,460
President Trump to Soon Nominate Justice to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy
Dear __________,
I'm sure that you've seen the news.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring. So President Donald Trump now has an opportunity to nominate another justice to the Supreme Court.
If you hadn't noticed, the entire leftist movement is going nuts.
You can be sure, that unless the replacement is a budding leftist (like David Souter), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats will move heaven and earth to utterly destroy him.
Regardless, it is important that we encourage the President to nominate a justice who is grounded in the Constitution -- and who will stand by every word of it (including the Second Amendment).
There are some good nominees on the President's list -- people like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who would be an outstanding pick.
So, if you have a Twitter account, you can tweet the President here to encourage him to pick a pro-gun, constitutionalist judge. (If you're not on Twitter, you can email here.)
Urge him to select a nominee in the mold of Senator Lee or Justice Neil Gorsuch or the late Antonin Scalia.
GOP rushing confirmation of leftist judge
Curiously, the Senate GOP is vigorously pushing anti-gun leftist Mark Bennett, who has been nominated to the Far Left Ninth Circuit bench.
The Senate will be voting on the Bennett nomination this Monday, July 9.
Bennett opposed the Heller Court's finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right. He also opposed GOA's right to participate in the political process, which was recognized in the Citizens United case.
Bennett is a leftist across the board.
And yet, the GOP leadership is forcing a vote on him -- while a large number of conservative nominees remain unconfirmed.
On Monday, July 9, we will know who President Trump's nomination is for the Supreme Court.
We will know whether we have to mobilize the Second Amendment community on behalf of a Trump Judicial Pick.
But it is a two-way street.
Donald Trump and the senate GOP owe us an obligation to ensure that their judicial picks unreservedly support the right to keep and bear arms.
Mark Bennett is NOT such a pick.
So please contact Sen. Mark Warner (D) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D) -- and encourage them to OPPOSE the Bennett nomination for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thank you.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director
Follow me on Twitter: @erichmpratt
P.S. Please urge your Senators to oppose the Mark Bennett nomination. Tweet or email the President in regard to the Supreme Court. And if you have let your GOA membership expire, make sure to renew your membership in Gun Owners of America today for only $20!
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,460
Same for Oklahoma, the wonderful gov recently screwed the people of that state over.
- Messages
- 1,047
- Reactions
- 2,939
Really, the culture is moving towards more freedom. So when do we get to buy select fire firearms and have them unregistered without a serial number shipped to our doorstep like grandaddy could?
Right, that's what I thought. That's "insane", yet was perfectly normal 70 years ago.
Right, that's what I thought. That's "insane", yet was perfectly normal 70 years ago.
- Messages
- 12,592
- Reactions
- 28,754
Make no mistake, it's a long war ahead. But once we get SCOTUS to grow some balls again and start enforcing Heller's "common use test" it means the end of the beginning. Next step then becomes to revisit Miller and "common military use" now that everybody and his frickin' DOG carries a "machine gun" on the battlefield...
- Messages
- 1,047
- Reactions
- 2,939
Crap I'd just like to not feel like a common criminal when I purchase a firearm. I go through a background check and finger printing for my concealed carry permit, then apparently it's not good enough at the gun store to prove I'm legal enough to buy one... Gotta go through more legal paperwork and another fingerprinting.
It's not a very comfortable experience, makes you feel like you are doing something wrong just trying to excersize your constitutional rights. I think the first time I purchased a gun I was a babbling nervous wreck. Purchasing a firearm shouldn't be an intimidating legal process with the third degree and cataloging our biometrics.
Sure ultimately it'd be nice to have the freedoms my grandaddy had back but starting with not treating all gun owners like criminals might be a nice start.
I figure in another 20years it'll be a strip search and spreading your cheeks added to the 4473.
- Messages
- 12,592
- Reactions
- 28,754
At that point, well... I've already embraced 80%'s and moved to "build" rather than "buy." Now NONE of my acquisitions are on paper... how d'ya like them roadapples, Grabberfascist a**holes?!
SUCK A DICK, HOPLOPHOBES!
Plinker, that's a goal to work toward.
But like I said... if Gun Rights is WWII, Heller was the high-water mark of the Battle of Britain at the very best. We still got a long road to Berlin and Tokyo ahead... and we're gonna have some losses, some bloody slogs... and, well, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though I'm not sure even those kind of blowout losses would make the point because these Grabbers make banzai-charging Imperial Japanese seem persuadable.
Last Edited:
It's not like they don't try. And because of the media and school teaching, many in our nation now look askance at gun owners as being abbynormal and those folks want more restrictions on firearm ownership and rights. Culture eventually impacts lawmaking, no matter what SCROTUS says.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,460
- Messages
- 4,913
- Reactions
- 12,782
Re Clinton.
Telling blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Minnesota Wisconsin and Ohio, that they need gun control in THE MIDDLE OF BUBBLEGUMMING HUNTING SEASON is not a great campaign tactic.
Telling blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Minnesota Wisconsin and Ohio, that they need gun control in THE MIDDLE OF BUBBLEGUMMING HUNTING SEASON is not a great campaign tactic.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
Ruger LCP MAX + 2 12 round mags & holsters ($350)- Started by Dakotapi3rc3
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Ruger 10/22 collector's series fifth edition with collector's extras - $255.37 free ship- Started by Richo877
- Replies: 4
-
-