Thursday, November 15, 2012

Obama 2nd Term and Firearm Laws

I've read a number of doomsdays articles in the last few weeks in regard to firearm confiscation and other restrictions in regard to the right to own a firearm.

Be reminded, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution had nothing to do with the right to Bear Arms so you could go hunting!

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

This is what the Obama administration could realistically SHOOT for with that in mind!

Assault Weapons Ban:

Passing and implementation of the Assault Weapons Ban.  Basically if it looks like a military rifle it would be outlawed (firearms meeting a certain criteria) .  The previous law in addition named actual firearms.  A ban on high capacity magazines is a certain.

It's being debated if the ban would require turn-in of firearms or if they would be grandfathered!

At the federal level Remington 1100s and like weapons were not affected during the last ban.

Outlawing of Private Sales:

All sales would be required to be via an FFL.  No direct sales to any individual by another individual.  FFL must be used and all sales would be vetted through the ATF system.

* This may have the best chance of passing!

United Nations:

Arms and ammunition control via international law. 

Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.

A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. (Washington Times Article)

The Biggest Threat:

Be wary of states and cities.  By law they have to allow you to have a firearm in your home.  And, in my interpretation of the law, not charge excess fees for you to exercise that right.  An excessive tax (fee) on firearms and ammunitions would most likely be overturned in the courts at the federal level.

They can require permits and registration for all firearms.  They can outlaw certain types of weapons (assault weapons).  They can require you to have a permit to purchase ammunition.

In some states, cities can implement stricter laws than the state. New York City has stricter guns laws than the state.

Be wary of states and cities....

No comments:

Post a Comment