Dicta is not controlling law.
Driving a car has changed a lot since I was a teenagers. Before, I could get my driver's license when I was 16. Not anymore. By the time my son went through all that he had to do, it took him over 1 1/2 years to even get a provisional d. license. We've come a long way from then. Maybe they'll do something similar with the guns. Have set rules in place to delay the inevitable.
Do you think it's going to change with the current SCOTUS? 50% of guns sold in the last few years are semi-automatics. I doubt if you and they really want to make 80 million Americans criminals.
Nobody is proposing confiscation of weapons, that's simply political media propaganda. Background checks, waiting period, pretty reasonable. It will be an uphill battle, too many in Congress on the dole of NRA contributions.
It's the common result of anger, fear & frustration, along with the feeling that something has to be done - regardless of how useless it is.
Banning prospectively does not ban retrospectively.
It would be interesting to see how the SCOTUS would rule on that. I'm not sure what the "common use" of an AR-15 would be.
It's a 'people with AR-15s' problem. No other readily available product is anywhere nearly as deadly. A psycho can go in to a gun shop with about $600 (maybe a little more), purchase an AR-15, and within minutes, massacre dozens of people. Someone might shoot dozens of people with a 9mm pistol, but chances are, most would survive. That's not the case with an AR-15.
^^^^ It's almost amusing - "Most would survive a 9mm pistol?"
Well said.
Why? Because the job of the Supreme Court is to determine the meaning of law and the Constitution -- in this case the 2nd Amendment. If that 200+ year old meaning does not work well in today's world, then the Constitution would need to be amended, which has happened 27 times. The amendment process is spelled out in the Constitution, and is the job of Congress or the States, not the Supreme Court.
You are right. We need to contact our folks in Congress.
Whenever a criminal commits a crime with a gun, they always want to punish the people who didn't do it.
Common, as in "Everyday" use, already accepted as inclusive to use by the general public, not being unheard of in today's firearm nomenclature.
The President cannot change a Constitutional Amendment! That takes a 2/3 majority vote by both houses of Congress, plus a 2/3 majority by the States. And yes, from a legal perspective the Second Amendment does cover these weapons, or I should say, anything done to "infringe" the right to bear Arms, other than by Congress will be tied up in Federal courts forever.
Ya, and how are your antigun laws working in Chicago? Learn from those mistakes...deal with the drugs and criminal minds, not the weapons they use...
Gaer: Smart lady you are, I could not have said it better!
To change an Amendment to the Constitution it takes a 2/3 majority vote from both houses in Congress, plus a 2/3 majority ratification by the States. Congress has ignored the goofy House proposals as they know they do not have a 2/3 majority in the House, Senate, or the States...! Stop wasting air time....
