Making gun owners a protected class
This strikes me more as something our opposition would do than my team.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 5th, 2017 at 7:05 pm
People don’t always like people in protected classes. That’s why they need protection. At the same time, being in a protected class, if noticeable, is likely to cause resentment. It’s usually not worth the trouble it causes.
June 5th, 2017 at 7:36 pm
Screw this! There is a difference between privileges and rights, and one determinant of that difference is whether the subject under discussion is held by a group or an individual. Rights inherently exist only in the individual. Groups get privileges, revocable at will by the mob, the majority, or those opposed to that group.
June 5th, 2017 at 8:26 pm
I would think we could do better by specifically appropriating money for a special DoJ division dedicated to prosecuting public employees under 18 U.S. Code § 242 who “under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person […] to the deprivation of [the] right” to keep and bear arms, which is “secured or protected by the Constitution”.
Call it the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. Make it a specifically named and confirmed deputy under the AG, and have the BATFE report to that deputy. Specify that no funds shall be used under that appropriate to hire anyone for this purpose that has not privately, personally, continuously and verifiably exercised that right for a period of 10 years.
Why not? There’s already a precedent for the Voting Rights Division. I think it would be swell to have a section of government dedicated solely to the prosecution and removal of public officials and employees that use their offices against protected rights. Furthermore, I think sting operations are in order, and will be entertaining.
June 5th, 2017 at 8:30 pm
@mikee, well said! The rights of all individuals should be protected. Just because some don’t choose to exercise a right or don’t like the exercise of a certain right or rights, should not denigrate the exercise of any right by any individual.
June 5th, 2017 at 9:08 pm
Lovely idea Tirno, but you can bet all the D’s and most of the RINO’s would fall all over themselves trying to kill it in its’ crib.
June 6th, 2017 at 10:28 am
Two wrongs can most certainly make something right.
I think the point of this is to make the Left play by its own rules. Now that the GOP owns most state legislatures, governor’s mansions and might even have some people in the US Congress that do more than pretend to be conservative, this bill can teach a lesson.
It’s like Glenn Reynolds said about the kid who complained to mom about his little sister pulling his hair. Mom said the kid did it because, “She doesn’t know it hurts” A minute later the little girl is crying and the big brother responds, “she knows now.”
For two long the Left made the rules and we followed them. I think a little legal reversal is in order.
June 6th, 2017 at 1:02 pm
The bill of rights is a list of “civil rights” – rights to protect the individual, and thus the ultimate minority (of one). The founders were afraid of democracy because pure democracy degenerates into mob rule.
We (gun owners) are already protected theoretically. We just need to get the courts to re-recognize it. Eventually I see Alan Gura arguing (using Miller as precedent) that the 2nd amendment REQUIRES the .gov to allow us to own M4s – after all, Miller said no sawed off shotguns because the military didn’t have a use for them.
June 8th, 2017 at 5:12 pm
“Miller said no sawed off shotguns because the military didn’t have a use for them.”
And the court was mistaken (either out of ignorance or intention) on that point; the military had been using them prior to the Miller case.
Anyway, the second amendment comes with no caveats or qualifiers, so the militia test they used in that decision is invalid. A human right is a human right, and an “arm” is an arm. “Shall not be infringed” takes the matter out of government jurisdiction entirely.
Furthermore; if you accept the mistaken militia test, then any free citizen can keep and bear military weapons of all kinds. If you don’t, then we can carry anything which might vaguely fall under the description of “arms” and no one in government has any say over the matter.
June 8th, 2017 at 6:07 pm
“And the court was mistaken (either out of ignorance or intention) on that point; the military had been using them prior to the Miller case.”
Which would have been pointed out if Miller’s attorney had bothered to show up at SCOTUS to argue the point . (Can’t be too harsh on him though; by then, Miller was missing and presumed dead and the attorney would have been footing the costs of showing up out of his own pocket.)