I would be left with my only single action revolver under those conditions. Not real good for concealed carry with the 10" barrel and 5 shot cylinder (45-70).
Posted on 07/30/2005 7:27:23 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Gun-control agitators were overjoyed when the City Council in Columbus, Ohio, unanimously passed an ordinance this month banning ownership of semi-automatic firearms.
Councilmen said the ordinance will reduce gun violence, but the ban is much more likely to enable violent crime.
Semi-automatic firearms are hardly the public-safety threat they're made out to be. They are used in a tiny fraction of crimes and always by criminals who don't obey gun laws.
As always, taking weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will make them more vulnerable to gun-toting criminals.
Moreover, the assault-weapons ban passed by Congress in 1994 never made America safer. Its chief achievements were to erode personal liberties and give the uninformed a false sense of security.
When the Bush administration finally allowed the ban to expire last fall, gun-controllers predicted police shootings would surge and cities would be overrun by gunslinging gang members, drug dealers and other criminals.
But the most obvious consequence of that decision was to show just how useless gun-control laws are.
Executive Director Joe Waldron of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called the Columbus ban a victory of "symbolism (over) substance; a flimsy sham that will only victimize competitive shooters, collectors and other law-abiding firearm owners. In terms of genuine public safety, this ban is a fraud, and its supporters know it."
Undaunted, Columbus has adopted the same failed strategy, and its first victim was its economy. Two months after picking Columbus to host its 2007 annual meeting and convention, the National Rifle Association decided to move the event to a city that respects gun rights and the Constitution.
An average NRA convention attracts tens of thousands of people. The Columbus Chamber of Commerce expected the 2007 event would have poured $20 million into the local economy and garnered the city copious free publicity from national news coverage.
Instead, Columbus is stuck with a worthless gun ban and its businesses are out $20 million; yet another case of gun-controllers shooting themselves in the foot.
I agree with you that the Sup Court does not properly, or legitimately have this power, but the sad fact is that in reality or practice they do because the other two allegedly coequal branches have let them have it.
Just consider how many radical, out-of-the-mainstream decisions the Sup Court has handed down in the last fifty years or so. While they havel helped to galvanize the social conservative base and thus help the GOP win many elections, they have sadly not resulted in much change at all. We have not had a President or Congress bold enough to pull an Andrew Jackson and defy the Court. We have not had Congress exercise its jurisdiction limiting authority. Instead we are left to the pathetic state of hoping that, this time, the latest Republican president hasn't completely F'ed up in picking a new SCOTUS judge. And unfortunately for us, they do screw up as much or more than they get it right. I mean, Reagan and Bush I combined to pick just two good judges out of five opportunities!
So I am doubtful that the American people would rise up raise hell if the Sup Court definitively gutted the Second Amendment and rendered it virtually meaningless. I even fear that such a decision would, the longer it stands, serve to push public opinion towards the garbage collective right view. It has happened with abortion and Roe; it too was a radical decision and outrageous usurpation of power by the Sup Court, yet today most people voice what is at least marginal support for the decision (though yes, I would fully agree with the assertion that this due mostly to the lies and distortions of the Left and mainstream media).
So the fact that the Sup Court does not legitimately hold the power it has given to itself if meaningless so long as the rest of the govt and nation dutifully obey all of its orders as though they were the word of God.
The socialist gun grabbers & the 'states righters', as in the post above, --- are among those that are spinning that the USSC has the power to "tell us what the Second Amendment means". -- This is simply not true, - and I look forward to the day they try to do so.
-- The Constitution is clear on this issue, and the people would immediately make that fact clear to the Court, and to any officials stupid enough to try to enforce a prohibitive infringement.
I am doubtful that the American people would rise up raise hell if the Sup Court definitively gutted the Second Amendment and rendered it virtually meaningless.
Enough of them would. -- Rest assured, just a million or so determined patriots using civil disobedience techniques could disrupt the system. I suspect that millions more would join such a fight once it started.
I even fear that such a decision would, the longer it stands, serve to push public opinion towards the garbage collective right view. It has happened with abortion and Roe; it too was a radical decision and outrageous usurpation of power by the Sup Court, yet today most people voice what is at least marginal support for the decision
'Collective rightists' are groups [regardless of political orientation] pushing for prohibitive laws over an individuals rights. -- And as you say, most people support individual rights.
(though yes, I would fully agree with the assertion that this due mostly to the lies and distortions of the Left and mainstream media).
Yes, the Left and mainstream media support Roe as an individual right, while they use lies and distort gun issues/rights as 'collective'. This error of logic is typical of socialists.
So the fact that the Sup Court does not legitimately hold the power it has given to itself if meaningless so long as the rest of the govt and nation dutifully obey all of its orders as though they were the word of God.
The Court has no real power to enforce their opinions. Congress & the Executive hold those powers only with the consent of the governed.
Even the three branches in collusion could not "gut" the Second Amendment, and make it stick.
Listen, I agree with you for the most part. Hamilton himself (a supporter of judicial review, though that doesn't mean he would support the extremes it has been taken to) said that the Court was tempered by its complete lack of enforcement power.
But my point is that the reality today is one of Judicial Supremacy. It doesn't really matter that is a corrupt situation, without legitimacy, because there is no challenge to it. What does their lack of enforcement power matter when the other two branches always dutifully obey and enforce the decisions. In such a situation where the other two supposedly coequal branches are subservient, then the Sup Court does in effect have enforcement power.
I don't like it one bit. I would actually very much like to see a showdown between Congress/President and the Supreme Court, but seeing as how the former don't hesitate to bend over and take the latest nonsense emanating from the latter, then I just don't see it happening.
My point is that I am very skeptical of any foreseeable uprising against the Court. As time goes by, Judicial Supremacy gets further and further entrenced, not just in law schools and Washington DC, but in the mind of the public.
I do, however, hope that I am wrong.
The Constitution means whatever five Sup Court justices say it means at any particular time.
It seems that someday there must be a definitive case about the Second Amendment; i.e. does it protect an individual right, or a worthless collective one?
I countered that; -- the Court has no real power to enforce their collective right opinions, despite what socialists may say.
Congress & the Executive hold those enforcement powers only with the consent of the governed and even the three branches in collusion could not "gut" the Second Amendment, and make it stick.
My point is that I am very skeptical of any foreseeable uprising against the Court. As time goes by, Judicial Supremacy gets further and further entrenced, not just in law schools and Washington DC, but in the mind of the public. I do, however, hope that I am wrong.
You're wrong in the sense that you've in effect agreed that "the mind of the public" is buying into "judicial supremacy".
-- In fact the public overwhelmingly scoffed at the latest big government supported property rights 'decision'.
Michigan is now a "shall issue" state and I exercise my right. How about Ohio?
Isn't this a misstatement? Wouldn't the ban end no matter who was president?
dunno....
I hadn't really checked. I only really am sure of the weak arse CCW Bubba Bob Taft signed into law last year...
Ohio is still better than Missagain overall :)
I would be left with my only single action revolver under those conditions. Not real good for concealed carry with the 10" barrel and 5 shot cylinder (45-70).
Thank you for that Clarification. When I say Columbus I assume it was the state legislature making laws for Ohio.
LOSERS.........
3 out of 4 and Tressel keeps calling you guys out....
hmmmmm...
methinks Lloydie pooh is going to choke again this year and call fullback dives the entire game....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.