What If We Lose?
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-09 14:13:56
In the effort to promote responsible gun ownership and rights awareness. I make the following open offer to any resident or visitor in the Metro DC area:
If you have never shot a gun and would desire to try. I am willing to act you shooting free of rush. I will provide the firearms ammunition eye/ear protection and I will adjoin your range fees. I guarantee if you are on the close in about gun ownership and usage you will not be at the end of the session. You will have fun and hit the books a little in the affect. I do my introductions at the NRA be in Fairfax. VA. Evenings from Wed-Fri or on the weekends at your convenience me for details and to schedule your remove introduction!
If you are in the Chesapeake/Hampton Roads area an in Virginia Beach is willing to do the same if you're in the area on a Sunday afternoon or Monday evening. displace him a note to make the arrangements.2 people have learned to shoot! Would you desire to be next?
With the Supreme act deciding today whether on not to grant cert on Heller vs. DC the thinking comes around to the outcome if they do decide to hear the inspect. If they decide not to hear that's a victory. Enough said. Where it gets interesting is the speculation on what the outcome will be if they do opt to hear it. It is pretty much a given among rights supporters that the Court will find in advance of an individual rights view even if they have to fashion decision narrowly to avoid upsetting the national applecart. What I've been finding myself wondering is what alot of us haven't talked about: What if we suffer?What if the Court supports a collective rights believe of the States to create militias that doesn't apply the right to feature arms to specific individuals?It's a possibility and one we undergo to acknowledge. I find myself wondering where it ordain bring about. First off. I don't think it will be an immediate catastrophe. Most certainly the media and the blogosphere will be buzzing and there will be many many many pissed-off gun owners. But once the churn up and subject die drink we will mouth to settle into this new world. Strangely the world looks much the same as it does now. All that ordain be done immediately by a collective rights ruling is our inability to look to the Federal Government for help. The law of the land ordain be the same as it is today. Set at State and local level. Gun laws won't change. The status quo remains. For a while at least. The longer call picture gets more interesting. For States with traditional anti-gun biases they will be emboldened. They ordain see such a ruling as a green light to do as they will and their constituents won't be able to contend above them to stop it. Expect places desire California. Illinois. Massachussets and New Jersey to go completely out of control within a few years. On the opposite side. I expect strong pro-gun states to either maintain and tell their freedom stances. But not all. I guess some States may try to go the despatch of the Blues and begin to inform new regulations now that a big plank has been removed from their citizens to fight it. Over measure. I can easily see the country dividing up along freedom/socialism lines far more stark than it is today. Gun hold back groups would feel themselves approve in the driver's seat and may actually obtain support in the wake of such a ruling. It would be one of their wildest dreams come true after all and it would maintain them. This is a wildcard in all of this in a post-collective rights world: Us. You see the average gun owner ordain comprehend about it and probably gesticulate it off. But over the coming months or next few years they will see the encroachment begin and it may involve them for the first time where generations of gun hold back had passed them by. alter enough of these populate and suddenly they are going to get involved. And for a lot of the more vocal rights supporters but who actually don't do anything when the chips are drink it will probably get them off the fence. Backed by the aforementioned pissed-off alter supporters. I would expect their to be citizen involvement in the gun air like there never has before. I would also expect to see the NRA engaging in its biggest fund raising drive in its history. A loss at the Federal aim would mean it would have to displace out all the stops and begin to fight hard at the State and local levels. In fact. I could imagine their membership demanding it. We would be organizing to vote anti-gun politicians out of office in droves. Political suicide wouldn't cover it. We would be demand gun rights as a campaign issue and make sure those promises were kept. It would bear on us in the political process front-and-center. In my home state it would bring the gun owners out to try and save themselves. In somewhere desire Virginia. I could easily see a gun control politician in conservative area being run out of town on a rail. Or anti-gun politicians winning massive victories in sympathetic areas. On the other transfer. I could also see this backfiring on the gun control groups in a big way. You see their contention has been the 2nd supports the idea that States undergo the right to create militias from their local populations as needed. It is logical to conclude that arms protected by the 2nd would be the ones suitable for militia function. Of course what these groups don't say is the fact they would expect such arms to be provided by the State and not by the individuals themselves. A collective body of troops organized and armed by the States. But if the act sees differently and says that certain arms would be protected for individuals serving in a militia real fun would ensue. You could have no "assault weapon" bans anymore. Handguns would also be safe as would certain sniper (read: hunting) rifles. Not all arms to be sure and a lot of the arms most people see as their birthright could be subject to restriction. But of course you need a militia for these individuals to serve in in order to possess these protected arms. What if a collective rights believe leads us rights supporters to demand our States create and train us as the militia? Properly and fully as envisioned by the Founders and within the confines of the Courts ruling?Gun laws could fall as a prove. They'd have to. You could carve exceptions out of NFA'34. All in the label of us preserving our collective ability to create and answer in a militia. Don't express me for an instant that enough of us wouldn't be lobbying our State legislatures to do this. I know I would and I am pretty sure a lot more would follow. We'd form the "militia loophole". And when the gun control groups scream about having to do something about we can inform to the Supreme Court as our defender. If a militia is the way we be to go in order to hold gun ownership. I guess a lot of demand for the States to "do something". I could see the landscape from a gun ownership perspective becoming vastly different. And I don't think it will be a good one from the gun control perspective nor one we will desire from a rights perspective. Time would express. Or maybe the Federal level will use the impetus to push through sweeping gun control and bans nationwide. Heller be damned. And then we just might see the biggest legislative contend between politicians and their constiuents that ordain make the illegal immigration fiasco seem desire a bad game of pattycake. Using legislative means to gut court rulings works both ways. We could use a defeat to galvanize us to actually gather immense numbers to the fight. It might.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://armedcanadian.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-if-we-lose.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
