Should we worry about new legislation in Washingtong?

[pcgizzmo]

Given the latest comments is their any need to worry about new legislation? Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

I am going to make an effort to be more educated in this regard. The NRA website is a big help.

[RPBrown]

We always need to worry. There will always be the few whose bark will be heard by some.

[hirundo82]

We need to remain vigilant, but I'm not too worried. Politicians want to remain in power above all else, and recent history has taught them that pushing gun control isn't conducive to that.

[VMI77]

Given the latest comments is their any need to worry about new legislation? Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

I am going to make an effort to be more educated in this regard. The NRA website is a big help.

The latest news is that Obama intends to bypass the Congress and make new rules by Executive Order.

[pcgizzmo]

Given the latest comments is their any need to worry about new legislation? Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

I am going to make an effort to be more educated in this regard. The NRA website is a big help.

The latest news is that Obama intends to bypass the Congress and make new rules by Executive Order.

I would think this would not bode well for his re-election. Do you have some links to this information?

[Snap E Tom]

Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

That is a very, very dangerous assumption.

The caveat of everything I am about to say is that this was in California. However, the warnings are applicable everywhere, especially in metropolitan areas.

I was involved with CA Republican politics from about '92 to '00. The biggest gun grabber during that time was the Republican AG, Dan Lungren. He constantly yammered on and on about getting guns off the streets. There was a police chief, Eugene Byrd, in the town of Isleton, a small rural town outside of Sacramento, who went shall issue on concealed permits. Lungren cracked down hard on him, and his cronies eventually drove him from office. What's Dan Lungren doing nowadays? Representing the 3rd Congressional District in CA. By the way, the CA Republican establishment considered him to be one of the most conservative politicians, so whatever he said was gold. I can name many other so-called conservative Republicans who supported gun control.

Did you know, that just this past gubernatorial election, the Democrat, Jerry Brown, was the candidate most supportive of gun rights? And not by a "lesser of two evils" account, either. Meg Whitman was solidly anti-gun based on her campaign statements and eBay's policies. Brown, meanwhile, as AG, drove a few high ranking anti-gun bureaucrats out of the AG office by making life a living hell for them. A personal friend of mine with inside knowledge said, "Brown was incredibly hostile to that division." He quashed a anti-gun filing that was making its way through the office on Heller, and personally wrote a pro-2nd Amendment friend of the court filing on McDonald. He stated, "[SCOTUS] should extend to the states the concept that government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes, but also provide guidance on the scope of the state's ability to reasonable regulate firearms." As AG, in an interview with an NPR affiliate in the Bay Area, Brown said something to the affect of, "It's not NRA members that are robbing convenience stores." Brown is never vocal on the gun issue, but he is on our side.

The sole reason that these anti-gun Republicans in CA used, and other anti-gun Reps around the country use, is that they are pandering to law enforcement. Doug Ose, another former Congressman said about the Assault Weapons Ban, "I'd support anything to make the jobs of law enforcement easier." California Republicans have always had a problem in that they're all either socialists or neocons. Being tough on crime was one of those things they could own.* The Constitution be damned.

* It was completely stupid. The police unions, especially the CHP, would almost always endorse the Dems because Dems liked to spend money and they liked big government. No matter how much the Republicans kowtowed to law enforcement interests, they'd get stabbed in the back come November. Done ranting.

[Snap E Tom]

I'll also just leave this here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opini ... tml?src=pm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

Given the latest comments is their any need to worry about new legislation? Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

I am going to make an effort to be more educated in this regard. The NRA website is a big help.

The latest news is that Obama intends to bypass the Congress and make new rules by Executive Order.

I would think this would not bode well for his re-election. Do you have some links to this information?

He couldn't get Cap and Trade passed in Congress, so he authorized the EPA to impose Cap and Trade through regulatory fiat. He can't get a gun ban through Congress, so he has appointed a radical gun-banner as the head of the BATF, and there are indications that BATF might try to force through changes by regulartory fiat. There have also been reports, some substantiated by the White House, that the administration might juggle its discretionary funds to get around Congressional refusal to fund certain programs.

He is no respecter of the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives - unless a majority of those representatives can force a vote through without giving time for proper reflection or time to read a bill, and it happens to agree with his agenda. Then he becomes a coconspirator with Congress.

Let's put it this way... If I had to trust someone with my nickel, and it came down to being between Obama and a wino, I'd pick the wino. At least I would know what my money was being spent on. With Obama, we don't even know that much. You only know that it is gone.

[G.A. Heath]

Legislatively: We should be watchful and remain ready to act on anything that makes progress.
Regulation wise: We should be very worried. New regulations will be treated like they are lawful until they are overturned, and a successful challenge to them may not happen.
Judicial action: This is another avenue we must consider and watch carefully. Any lawsuit can work against us, or for us, and there is very little we can do about it other than support our side.

We should watch all three vectors carefully and remain ready to act in order to stop any threats.

[pcgizzmo]

Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

That is a very, very dangerous assumption.

The caveat of everything I am about to say is that this was in California. However, the warnings are applicable everywhere, especially in metropolitan areas.

I was involved with CA Republican politics from about '92 to '00. The biggest gun grabber during that time was the Republican AG, Dan Lungren. He constantly yammered on and on about getting guns off the streets. There was a police chief, Eugene Byrd, in the town of Isleton, a small rural town outside of Sacramento, who went shall issue on concealed permits. Lungren cracked down hard on him, and his cronies eventually drove him from office. What's Dan Lungren doing nowadays? Representing the 3rd Congressional District in CA. By the way, the CA Republican establishment considered him to be one of the most conservative politicians, so whatever he said was gold. I can name many other so-called conservative Republicans who supported gun control.

Did you know, that just this past gubernatorial election, the Democrat, Jerry Brown, was the candidate most supportive of gun rights? And not by a "lesser of two evils" account, either. Meg Whitman was solidly anti-gun based on her campaign statements and eBay's policies. Brown, meanwhile, as AG, drove a few high ranking anti-gun bureaucrats out of the AG office by making life a living heck for them. A personal friend of mine with inside knowledge said, "Brown was incredibly hostile to that division." He quashed a anti-gun filing that was making its way through the office on Heller, and personally wrote a pro-2nd Amendment friend of the court filing on McDonald. He stated, "[SCOTUS] should extend to the states the concept that government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes, but also provide guidance on the scope of the state's ability to reasonable regulate firearms." As AG, in an interview with an NPR affiliate in the Bay Area, Brown said something to the affect of, "It's not NRA members that are robbing convenience stores." Brown is never vocal on the gun issue, but he is on our side.

The sole reason that these anti-gun Republicans in CA used, and other anti-gun Reps around the country use, is that they are pandering to law enforcement. Doug Ose, another former Congressman said about the Assault Weapons Ban, "I'd support anything to make the jobs of law enforcement easier." California Republicans have always had a problem in that they're all either socialists or neocons. Being tough on crime was one of those things they could own.* The Constitution be damned.

* It was completely stupid. The police unions, especially the CHP, would almost always endorse the Dems because Dems liked to spend money and they liked big government. No matter how much the Republicans kowtowed to law enforcement interests, they'd get stabbed in the back come November. Done ranting.

Good reply. Thanks for the info. I guess they saying "you can't judge a book by it's cover". holds true.

[VMI77]

Given the latest comments is their any need to worry about new legislation? Would the Republicans let anything new pass? I am sad to say I don't keep up with all the political players and their views on the 2nd Amendment but I assume that the majority of Republicans are pro and even some Democrats and the gun haters are usually in the minority.

I am going to make an effort to be more educated in this regard. The NRA website is a big help.

The latest news is that Obama intends to bypass the Congress and make new rules by Executive Order.

I would think this would not bode well for his re-election. Do you have some links to this information?

In case you didn't see it on the other thread I posted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 36138.html

[VMI77]

I'll also just leave this here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opini ... tml?src=pm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's a good one, it actually says:

"This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981."

Aside from the utter absurdity of the statement conferred by time, the weasel wording is itself quite stunning. It's been a long time since political use of the word "conservative" has meant anything meaningful.