Worst case scenario with 2nd Amendment if Hillary is elected?

[Darrell KSR]

Tell me how you see the worst case scenario playing out, and then tell me how you see the most likely scenario playing out if she becomes the new President.

Go.

[KSRBEvans]

Worst case scenario: she attempts to limit rights by executive order, similar to how Obama tried to deal with immigration by executive order. Litigation ensues and the order is stayed pending a court decision.

Most likely scenario: More of the same--lots of posturing, nothing happens so long as there is divided government. And maybe not even if the Democrats win both houses of Congress (unlikely scenario). There was united government from January 09-January 11 and nothing happened then because they didn't want their vulnerable members paying for it at the polls.

[suncat05]

Until they passed the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in the next election backlash that we saw happen. That one piece of midnight oil legislation cost the Democrats in a way they were not expecting. And they haven't been close to controlling anything since then. Nor should they.

[Darrell KSR]

Until they passed the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in the next election backlash that we saw happen. That one piece of midnight oil legislation cost the Democrats in a way they were not expecting. And they haven't been close to controlling anything since then. Nor should they.
This is what I'm thinking. Could be a major backlash effect.

[Doc]

How will it happen? It Won't be an executive order. That is too obvious and would get struck down by the Supreme Court. However what will happen is she fills the one justice spot with a liberal leaning justice. Then another as the old farts die off. Eventually she stacks the court, passes an amendment by hook and crook. It will take 3-4 years unless she has one of conservative judges "offed" similar to James McDougal!.

[UKHistory]

I think on legal grounds an executive order could not trump the a Constitutional amendment. Appointing ant-gun judges is the most likely thing to occur.

With Congress the way it is, we won't lose the second amendment. However,with the recent assault on police, if Dems frame this as a way to protect the police, the NRA could be in a tight spot.

Hard to think the left would leave the talking points of police abuse of minorities to promote protect police. Or that police would support or endorse limitations on the second amendment. But that is what I would try and do if I was a Hilary staffer.

[CitizenBBN]

The worst case is the same as the most likely case, in fact I'll guarantee it.

It wont' be executive orders, etc. that doom us. She may try, it will be battled in court, etc. but that's just normal stuff.

She'll appoint justices who believe the 2nd Amendment was talking about militias and not individuals, which means there is no Constitutional right whatsoever to gun ownership or self defense, and the entire process of getting the Heller and McDonald established will be undone.

So the worst case is that there effectively IS no 2nd Amendment for as long as her picks dominate the court, for what we consider it to be. None. Gone.

Think I'm extreme? Read Breyer and Ginsburg have said about the 2nd Amendment, they don't believe it even exists. Here's a direct quote:

"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

They flat out believe there is no right to gun ownership in the US, period, end of story. Neither does Hillary Clinton. If she can nominate just 1 justice she can swing the balance that way, and if she gets the chance to get 2-3 on there with that belief system then the battle is completely over.

Only the senate would stand in her way and they can't hold out forever on that issue, esp. if the Senate swings back.

Once that happens THEN the government can ban anything they want, any time they want. Maybe they get things passed maybe not, but there is no more legal requirement to allow people to defend themselves.

An entire Constitutional right erased from the Bill of Rights. Heller and MacDonald overturned. that's got to be a worst case.

[KeithKSR]

Worst case is like CBBN says, court gets shifted left and the Second Amendment is reinterpreted as a collective right and individual gun ownership is gone.

[dan_bgblue]

She manages to push thru her nomination for the Supreme Court, Richard A. Posner. After she gets that nut case on the court a coup by the military may be the only way to stop the potential carnage at the federal level.

[suncat05]

There isn't anybody in the upper echelons of this current standing military that 1) has the balls to do something like that, and 2) there's nobody with that much intelligence in this whole lot of "Yes men" anywhere in the command structure since Obama has been purging all of the real war fighters out of the entire military.

[Darrell KSR]

I'm still waiting to hear what individual gun ownership is gone means. Are you guys suggesting that confiscation will occur? Concealed weapon Carry Permits obliterated? Exactly how do you see it transpiring?

[CitizenBBN]

I'm still waiting to hear what individual gun ownership is gone means. Are you guys suggesting that confiscation will occur? Concealed weapon Carry Permits obliterated? Exactly how do you see it transpiring?

it will be state by state and city by city on many issues, like the Mass AG expanding the definition of "assault weapons" without legislation. Places like where we live will be reasonably OK, but folks in Chicago and DC can forget having any gun rights.

But I could see a return to a national assault weapons ban of some kind, that would be the first legislative step federally b/c that's the one they can sell the best. Of course it's hard to get anything through the Senate but that would always be the risk.

The biggest federal risk, the granddaddy prize of them all, would be to lift the Congressional protection preventing gun companies for being sued for use of guns and not their mechanical failure. The gun control lobby was about to destroy the gun industry in the US with it, if they could get the votes that's the one they want back. They could sue the entire industry into non-existence.

Can they get that through? Probably not, but to me having the SCOTUS say there is no 2nd Amendment, there is no right to gun ownership or self defense, is it's own worst outcome regardless of subsequent legislation. Just the validation of that belief by the highest court will fundamentally shift the debate. It will maybe someday shift back but you never know, and there's no doubt it will allow a lot of blue states to go a lot farther. It won't deny my my rights, but it will a lot of Americans.

[dan_bgblue]

It would begin with actions like this one in Massachusetts (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/21/stats-dont-support-massachusetts-ags-expanded-ban-on-assault-weapons.html)

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Worst case, assault rifle ban.

Most likely case, better background checks by eliminating the 3-day wait, closing the gun show loophole, restricting guns to domestic abusers and mentally ill.

The 2nd amendment is not under attack, neither is Christmas.

[CitizenBBN]

Worst case, assault rifle ban.

Most likely case, better background checks by eliminating the 3-day wait, closing the gun show loophole, restricting guns to domestic abusers and mentally ill.

The 2nd amendment is not under attack, neither is Christmas.

OK, quick fact check.

Guns are already restricted to anyone who is convicted of domestic abuse or mentally ill. It's been the gun industry BEGGING states to report their mental health records for background checks, and the anti-gun forces have only impeded that improvement. Hillary for sure isn't picking up a ball being carried now by the NSSF. They don't want those improvements b/c it will reduce pressure on making the bigger changes. Alinsky was right.

The mental competence standard has been on the books since 1968 btw.

Just curious, do you know what the "3 day wait" means?

as for the gun show "loophole" there is no such thing. Feel free to explain in detail how there is such a loophole b/c I assure you it doesn't exist, at least not on the books.


How can the 2nd Amendment, defined as the right to own guns, not be "under attack" when at least 3 and probably 4 justices believe the amendment applies only to the outdated need for a militia and is not an individual right at all? By definition it's under attack and to say otherwise is just silliness. There is a fundamental disagreement as to whether there was ever meant to be an individual right to own guns for self defense or if the 2nd Amendment, passed in a Bill of Rights specifically inserted to assure people of their rights, was actually just some organizational comment on how state militias should be organized.

Of course it's under attack, and in fact so are large parts of Christmas. Hell, everything is under attack by the Leftist PC machine these days, can't swing a dead cat without hitting something that offends someone.

[ukblue]

I'm afraid someone will steal every gun that I own. I see it on the horizon.

[KeithKSR]

Worst case, assault rifle ban.

Most likely case, better background checks by eliminating the 3-day wait, closing the gun show loophole, restricting guns to domestic abusers and mentally ill.

The 2nd amendment is not under attack, neither is Christmas.

Tell me about this gun show loophole that the left continually claims to exist. What is the loophole? Have you ever purchased a firearm at a gun show? Have you ever been to a gun show?

Any type of domestic violence charge disqualifies anyone from purchasing a firearm. Not conviction, but charge.

Anyone adjudicated to be mentally ill can not purchase a firearm. Recent executive orders have extended this to VA and other pension recipients who are drawing disability claims based on a mental condition.

Assault rifles have long been banned, individual citizens cannot go out and purchase a battlefield rifle.

Anyone who says the Second Amendment is not under attack has not been listening to the liberals.

[KeithKSR]

I'm afraid someone will steal every gun that I own. I see it on the horizon.

I'm afraid of getting mine stolen, so I take them with me fishing. Hope they don't fall off the boat.

[Doc]

Well what going to happen is a ban on 50 caliber clips and guns that fire 30 rounds in a half second.

[Darrell KSR]

I'm afraid of getting mine stolen, so I take them with me fishing. Hope they don't fall off the boat.

Can I go fishing with you, Keith? I'll take mine, too.

[dan_bgblue]

A person has to have a FFL to own a fully automatic weapon if they acquire it legally. Those are true assault weapons that were developed for the battlefield. The weapons currently under discussion that are labeled assault rifles are just semi-automatic weapons, hunting rifles, that are generally clip fed and are designed by the manufactures to just simply look bad a$$

[CitizenBBN]

A person has to have a FFL to own a fully automatic weapon if they acquire it legally. Those are true assault weapons that were developed for the battlefield. The weapons currently under discussion that are labeled assault rifles are just semi-automatic weapons, hunting rifles, that are generally clip fed and are designed by the manufactures to just simply look bad a$$

I just sold a 1960s era Woodsmaster 742. In every way it's functionally identical to a modern "assault rifle" as described by anti-gun forces and those who simply don't know better. It's a gas operated semi-auto rifle chambered in calibers up to 30/06. Even has a detachable mag.

The only difference is the Woodsmaster was sold with a 5 round magazine and modern ARs etc. have 20 and 30 round mags.

If the left wanted to ban and confiscate anything to deal with these kinds of attacks, the only thing that really makes any sense at all is to go after the mags. They do that of course in some states, and it's proven useless of course b/c there are so many ways to deal with that hurdle, but that's the only one that makes a lick of sense really.

instead Clinton and several states banned stuff like pistol grips, as if that limits ones ability to take the rifle and go kill people instead of deer with it. Dumbasses.

[KeithKSR]

Can I go fishing with you, Keith? I'll take mine, too.

Sure, I'm just not liable for any lost property.

[KeithKSR]

A person has to have a FFL to own a fully automatic weapon if they acquire it legally. Those are true assault weapons that were developed for the battlefield. The weapons currently under discussion that are labeled assault rifles are just semi-automatic weapons, hunting rifles, that are generally clip fed and are designed by the manufactures to just simply look bad a$$

Those legally owned automatic weapons have a fixed supply, as the only available weapons had to be manufactured prior to the 1984 ban. That fixed supply results in some hefty five figure starting prices. I'd love to shoot a Thompson or BAR, two of the more popular automatics.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Tell me about this gun show loophole that the left continually claims to exist. What is the loophole? Have you ever purchased a firearm at a gun show? Have you ever been to a gun show?

Any type of domestic violence charge disqualifies anyone from purchasing a firearm. Not conviction, but charge.

Anyone adjudicated to be mentally ill can not purchase a firearm. Recent executive orders have extended this to VA and other pension recipients who are drawing disability claims based on a mental condition.

Assault rifles have long been banned, individual citizens cannot go out and purchase a battlefield rifle.

Anyone who says the Second Amendment is not under attack has not been listening to the liberals.

The 'gun show loophole' is a generic term that refers to any private transaction where the seller is unlicensed, not limiting to gun shows(where I know that most dealers are licensed). I believe the most likely case of gun control that Hillary will get passed will be some sort of need for licensing or registration of these types of sales that will require background checks, and they should.

Sure, domestic charges, in theory, should already restrict gun ownership, but it's broken, and needs to be fixed. Same with people with mental illness. I guess that's more of the category of enforcing existing laws, but there should be tweaks to them too, to enforce accountability, which we don't have much of today.

Finally, I know what liberals say. I am one of them. I have tons of friends and family members that are ones(as well on the other side too), and not one single person that I know wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Nobody that I know or listen to even considers it under attack(same with Christmas, btw). Sure, there are those on the left, a very small minority, of which I have never met one in my entire life, that would love to get rid of the 2nd amendment and every gun in existence, but that number of people, I'm guessing is smaller than those on the right that wants a gun in everybody's hands, including felons, domestic terrorists, domestic abusers, anyone.

It's just this paranoia on the right that thinks every liberal wants to destroy the 2nd amendment. It's simply just a talking point to keep the base rallied, especially as the GOP is divided. If you think it's just the standard liberal thought, I'm here to tell you that I don't think this way and I can introduce you to hundreds of others that don't either.

Hillary doesn't want to get rid of the 2nd amendment. She may want to change how it's interpreted, but that's never going to change the fundamental right to bear arms. It just needs to be a fundamental right for the deserving and not all. Also, it shouldn't be every piece of weaponry that has been created. There should be some limits as to what an individual should own that doesn't infringe on one's right to ownership.

So, that's what I think the most likely case to worst case will look like under Hillary, some passing of all the above to passing of all the above, with the 2nd amendment firmly in tact for those responsible, law-abiding citizens.

[KeithKSR]

I can tell you from experience that there are few transactions that do not go through a background check. Why? Most people don't want to sell a firearm they purchased with a background check and take a chance on it falling into the wrong hands. Most transfers are among family members, fathers handing guns down to children, etc.

If I were to sell a gun to another individual it is my responsibility to be reasonably assured that the individual is legally allowed to purchase a firearm. I am also required to restrict any sale to a Kentucky resident. I should note that I have never sold a firearm to anyone.

Every firearm ever manufactured is not available for purchase. The assault weapons ban is stupid as stupid can be, and only the firearm illiterate endorse it, as those familiar with weapons function knows that the bans do nothing and are only put in place based on physical looks that do not impact capability.