I discount anything that Hillary Clinton said about guns during the period when she was trying to get to the left of Bernie on an issue ANY ISSUE. The only one she could find was guns. Bernie supported the law that forbade these lawsuits that abused the judicial system and used it as a method of harassing gun manufacturers.
I don’t think she will be good on guns but I don’t think she will try to pass an assault weapons ban or anything like that. My litmus test for where politicians really stand on guns is the reaction to Sandy Hook. If you supported an assault weapons ban, then you are (or were) ignorant and are predisposed to banning guns. Trump supported an Assault Weapons Ban (that makes him ignorant IMHO), Hillary stayed quiet but Bill issued a statement warning Democrats not to get carried away with gun control.
I think the actual threat Hillary poses to gun rights is that gun rights have become a partisan issue and if she nominates partisan justices, then they will come with the standard liberal package of opinions including liberal notions about the second amendment. She won’t pick justices because of their position on guns but they will almost uniformly be anti-gun rights and while they won’t overturn Heller, they might limit its application to handguns in the home.
This only makes sense if you ignore H. Clinton’s long history regarding guns. She’s been an anti long before this year’s election. 25% tax, bankrupting manufacturers, etc. Clinton would pass any ban she thought she could get away with.
On February 4, 2009, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 was signed into law, which raised the federal tax rate for cigarettes on April 1, 2009 from $0.39 per pack to $1.01 per pack.
The President can tax? When did that office take the place of Congress? Congress needs to authorize the taxes before the executive department can collect them, doesn’t it?
Part of that history includes keeping her big trap SHUT in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre while folks like Trump pushed for an AWB.
I’m not saying she is going to try and promote second amendment rights but I don’t think that her promotion of gun control is going to be anything other than the ancillary effect of nominating liberal justices.
Exactly – good luck passing any sort of punitive tax on firearms and ammunition through any likely Congress in the near future(). Of for that matter anything that is confiscatory or creates a constructive prohibition. The most I foresee is creating inconveniences and annoyances and in the end wasting everyone’s time.
( though it’s not like gun-grab panic market effects haven’t shown many of the people most concerned about it aren’t willing to cough up more cash just to get their warm live fingers on more guns and ammunition; you’re just not going to have the votes for anything really major)
At the federal level, I think you’re right. The significant losses will be at the state level where anti-gun states pass draconian gun restrictions and a SCOTUS packed with Clinton appointees lets them stand.
They very well might just under the ‘sue everyone you can think of and see what happens’ theory and see what happens. In your case, who knows, maybe Husqvarna will say 'here’s $5000 and an apology and please sign this waiver saying that you won’t hold his liable anymore". It may be cheaper just give them a few bucks and (legally) bow out of the case then to have to fight it, especially if it means having to fly a lawyer across the country.
OTOH, sometimes that kind of stuff really makes no sense (and I’m not saying your example does). Back when I was in college, there was a big grocery store near by. Any time anyone bought alcohol there they had to sign a book stating they wouldn’t give the alcohol to anyone underage. When asked (and IIRC, the cite was easily findable in the local newspaper), it was explained that in the recent past someone bought some alcohol, gave it to an underager, she got into a fatal car accident and her parents sued the store. That, I truly don’t understand, like I can’t even see it being worth the money to file the suit against them (unless there was more going on than I know about, for example the underage girl was there with the person buying the booze and the cashier could or ‘should’ have known better).
The President banned drilling in the Gulf for 6 months without any pretext. It was eventually overturned but not before the damage was done and the oil companies moved their rigs out.
Best of luck on that argument that a president can’t tax something. You seemed to forget the IRS penalty for not enrolling in health care. Yah, it’s not a tax:rolleyes: You call it whatever you want just make sure you sign the check to the IRS.
(1) was overreach of regulatory authority that as you noticed was overturned, and unlike the jobs of the oil rig workers, you’ll be fine for six months w/o your favorite ammo. (2) was a proposal about how to apply an *existing *ban and it failed anyway to even be put in effect. So I don’t see them as fine examples of all that the President can achieve unilaterally. And (3) (Obamacare penalty) was in an Act, passed by Congress so it doesn’t even apply to that question.
The system has mostly worked, so far. I’d rather trust it.
And what’s stopping a politicized court from NOT overturning it? We have seat belt laws that are clearly an overreach of the court’s authority yet somehow they exist. Justices are installed for life via a political system.
The Sandy Hook case should have been dismissed within days yet it went on for a considerable length of time.
:dubious: If they are seat belt *laws *they were passed by the legislature.
I know in this particular subject you’re in the “don’t ever yield one goddamned inch” school. But just now you’re only providing an example of the saying that “activist/politicised court means one whose ruling goes against your side.”
my point sailed over your head. Seat belt laws have no basis in law. None. It is a complete infringement of personal choice that a court of law bent sideways to fit a political agenda. And I’m saying that as a huge advocate of their use.
How is mandating seat belt use an Infringement? The state can regulate vehicle safety; safety belt use certainly falls under that. Perhaps you also think the government is overreaching by requiring motor vehicle operators to have a license to operate said motor vehicles?