2005 Year in Review: Second Amendment and Federal Law
David Kopel notes 2005 was a good year for gun rights. Further, he writes:
Significant Second Amendment protection issues for Congress in 2005 (I assume he means 2006 – Ed.) will likely include repeal of the D.C. ban on handgun possession and on possession of long guns in a condition usable for home defense; prohibiting state or local governments from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens (as New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish did after Katrina), addressing BATFE abuses, and taking action against United Nations efforts to destroy American gun rights.
Here’s hoping. Not exactly my wishlist but a good place to start, particularly BATF abuses. I still favor repeal of sporting purpose and the Hughes amendment.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Significant Second Amendment protection issues for Congress in 2005 will likely include repeal of the D.C. ban on handgun possession and on possession of long guns in a condition usable for home defense;…
Well that’s been on the agenda for, like, forever. They never seem to get anywhere.
…prohibiting state or local governments from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens (as New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish did after Katrina),…
I want to see more than a dog and pony show congressional investigation. I want to see people in jail.
…addressing BATFE abuses,…
Another congressional investigation? Or are we gonna de-fund those bastards? Seems to me that those pet stomping, NICS lawbreaking, tobacco ninjas have yet to receive anything more than a slap on the wrist. They even got rewarded by being moved to another branch during the “Homeland Security kerfuffle shuffle”
…and taking action against United Nations efforts to destroy American gun rights.
Ho-hum. Again, although that is a valid concern, that’s been on the agenda for a decade.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
I want all laws that restrict firearms in any way removed from the law books in all political jurisdictions. In other words, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?” That’s our goal. We reach it one step at a time. Don’t ease up just because we win a few battles here and their. We have a long way to go and we need to keep pressing and bring the fight to the anti-freedom bigots. Our goal should be to see their sun bleached bones scattered in the desert. The courts might not give us this sort of relief but that should be our position when they say they want to negoitate a surrender.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
The Constitution actually does say what it says. Anyone who has taken the Oath to uphold defend and protect the Constitution, then violates that Oath, is an enemy of The People and belongs in a cage. My only question is, How do we get them there?