The Government of Canada has introduced a new bill in Parliament that would freeze the sale, importation, or trading of hand guns, effective this fall

jimintoronto said:
The proposed new legislation would also prohibit magazines that hold more than 5 rounds. Anyone who is convicted of domestic violence will have their firearms confiscated by a Judge's Order. Anyone sent to a secure mental health facility will have their firearms seized. The sentences for those convicted of using a firearm ( of any type ) in a crime, will get stiffer punishment upon conviction. Sentences for those convicted of smuggling firearms into Canada will get tougher sentences upon conviction. The ruling Liberal party has already secured a agreement with the New Democratic Party to support this new legislation when it comes up for a vote in September. The Prime Minister commented at a press conference that " Canadians don't need a AR15 to bring down a deer ".
Click to expand...
All depends on if they want instant hamburger meat.
 

.
Dr. Jekyll said:
Warning - opinion ahead...

Notwithstandng amateur and expert interpretations of the 2nd, the DC v Heller decision ruled that the right to keep and bear does apply to indivduals and it is the current reigning precedent. However, this does not mean that it is forever - witness Roe v Wade.

The simple, single solution of banning guns in the US is a pipe dream and those who clamor for that and nothing else are not serious and are just wasting energy.

Any anti-gun effort that is truly serious must, as it's first point, call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of repealing or modifying the 2nd amendment. It should also move forward with a continuous barrage of legal challenges aimed at overturrning Heller. Again, see Roe v Wade.

As far as legislation goes, which could contribute to the barrage of court cases, the anti-gun crowd must understand and accept the reality of the current situation. You have to propose something that is going to get 60 votes in the Senate. One way is to change the Senate - that's why we have elections. To continue to propose ridiculous things that are not going to get 60 votes just says they want the issue, not that they are serious about making changes.

I tire of false comparisons to Canada, Australia, etc. They don't have a constitutional right such as we do, so their governments can easily enact such sweeping actions.
Click to expand...
Dr. Jekyll. I believe your assessment is correct, as for now. I am sensing a growing backlash to gun violence in the US. I doubt if I will see the repeal of that part of the 2nd Amendment in my lifetime, but definitely within 20-30 years.
 

Em in Ohio said:
The Amendment you refer to reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I'm sure the intent was not for civilians to own assault weapons and target other innocent civilians !

Random mass killings are not done by members of "A well regulated Militia."

What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.​

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#:~:text=The Supreme Court released very,t always easy to protect.
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to the Second Amendment. James Madison compromised with the Anti-Federalists who were aligned with Southern slaveholders like Patrick Henry. The opposition was very concerned about slave uprisings. Especially with what was going on in Haiti at the time. They did not want the federal gov't to interfere with the states' ability to control the Black population by force.
 
Dr. Jekyll said:
Warning - opinion ahead...

Notwithstandng amateur and expert interpretations of the 2nd, the DC v Heller decision ruled that the right to keep and bear does apply to indivduals and it is the current reigning precedent. However, this does not mean that it is forever - witness Roe v Wade.

The simple, single solution of banning guns in the US is a pipe dream and those who clamor for that and nothing else are not serious and are just wasting energy.

Any anti-gun effort that is truly serious must, as it's first point, call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of repealing or modifying the 2nd amendment. It should also move forward with a continuous barrage of legal challenges aimed at overturrning Heller. Again, see Roe v Wade.

As far as legislation goes, which could contribute to the barrage of court cases, the anti-gun crowd must understand and accept the reality of the current situation. You have to propose something that is going to get 60 votes in the Senate. One way is to change the Senate - that's why we have elections. To continue to propose ridiculous things that are not going to get 60 votes just says they want the issue, not that they are serious about making changes.

I tire of false comparisons to Canada, Australia, etc. They don't have a constitutional right such as we do, so their governments can easily enact such sweeping actions.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard too many people "clamoring to ban all guns." Actually, I haven't heard anyone say they want to ban all guns, although I'm sure there are a few.

What most people who want to change our gun regulations, which is the majority of the people in the U.S., is to make it more difficult for unstable people to purchase and own the AR-15 style rifles. Some want to ban them outright; some want to raise the age to 21 for someone to be able to legally purchase one; some want gun registration; some want a national database of owners of such rifles.

As far as overturning Heller, there are a few ways. The justices who lied during their confirmation hearings could be impeached and removed through House and Senate trials and then replaced with liberal justices, although that's not likely to happen. The president could add additional justices so he or she could create a majority by stacking the court. I believe that is what F.D.R. did to get his agenda passed. That's not going to happen, either.

Banning AR-15 style rifles may not be ruled unConstitutional, anyway. The fully automatic versions, the M-16, are already banned. The only difference is the M-16 can operate in fully automatic mode, semi-automatic mode, or single shot mode. The AR-15 can't operate as a fully automatic rifle without modifications, which are illegal.

If the 2nd Amendment guaranteed unfettered access to all firearms, the current regulations banning fully automatic weapons would be ruled unConstitutional. Perhaps it would be if somebody challenged it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top