Posted on 11/04/2023 9:15:09 AM PDT by rellimpank
On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in U.S. v. Rahimi to determine whether laws that prohibit possession of firearms by persons subject to restraining orders are constitutionally permissible.
The ruling could lead courts to invalidate “red flag” laws in more than 20 states across the country. While we will not know the outcome until 2024, this court has already made it abundantly clear over the last 15 years that it will take every opportunity to curtail common-sense gun regulations, even as gun deaths skyrocket in the wake of their rulings. Gun reform advocates have been fighting on losing terrain for decades and need to take a new approach: focus on state level reforms that restrict the sale of guns in the first place. First, gun reform advocates need to focus on the states, not the federal government. National gun reform requires an unlikely trifecta — Democratic control of the Presidency, House, and a filibuster-proof Senate. That’s happened once since 1994, it lasted for about six months, and even then Democrats were not able to pass any significant gun reform legislation. Without that hat trick, experience shows that our federal laws will not materially change, no matter how many shootings take place, or how heinous any particular shooting is.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
” If the law succeeds in reducing gun violence, other states across the political divide may also become interested in following”
I’m sure Montana is really interested in enacting the same gun laws as Maryland seeing how little gun violence there is in Baltimore...
” If the law succeeds in reducing gun violence, other states across the political divide may also become interested in following”
I’m sure Montana is really interested in enacting the same gun laws as Maryland seeing how little gun violence there is in Baltimore...
A question from the back of the room. If corporations stop making guns, where will criminals and politicians’ security details get their guns from?
We're not going to talk about this though.
Genius, they won’t ban the BUING of guns, they’ll just ban SELLING them. That ought to be constitutional. </sarc>
That was sarcasm. The Dems would lose half their votes if this happened.
No surprise that a MSN hack (nose up Gates’ butt) wants to ban the sale of guns - while probably also wanting to force businesses to create and sell crap that personally offends them.
They want to absolutely rule you and they need to remove your method of protecting yourself first...
BTW - just watched the latest “Left Behind” movie on Amazon - has Kevin Sorbo in it and pulls no punches about where we’re headed right now...
OK, we’ll agree to ban guns but the left has to agree that anyone found with one, or any other weapon, or committing a violent act, or demanding someone else commit a violent act, is immediately executed on the spot. Dead. Right there. No trial. Go feral, get dead. Loot, riot, burn, get dead. Rob, steal, carjack, get dead.
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.