My understanding is that the states’ constitutions may not be in conflict with the federal constitution. Because in Roe v Wade the Court held that laws against abortion violated a woman’s rights, the States may not pass laws or amendments to that effect.
If a state tried to make an amendment to establish a state church, then the Supreme Court would certainly throw it out. Yes, this conflicts with my contention that the first ten amendments are binding on the US only. But the state has a compelling interest in being able to regulate weapons. The state has no compelling interest to establish an official church.
After reading that I am just shocked. I’ve never seen factcheck to get it so wrong. The NRA is admittedly reading the unclear wording of the law and assuming the worst (or most strict) possible interpretation. But, they are giving it a free pass completely.
I’m really going to doubt anything that factcheck has to say from now on.
I just checked out that page also. My Remington 870 would have been banned under the law. This is one of the most common hunting shotguns. They are cheap, reliable and sold everywhere.
I shot a doe with mine last year in Southern NH. If Kerry wanted my vote, he needs to keep his hands off my favorite shotgun.
So, as long as they think it’s important they should be allowed to disregard the Constitution?
As for states having compelling interests in official churches: History seems to suggest that nations do tend to embrace one official church. I would assume they have a reason for doing so, probably something to do with cultural unity. If they could, I believe some US states would establish official churches and claim that they had really good reasons for doing so.
Factcheck needs to keep editorial opinions such as this to themselves if they want to try and be non-partisan.
In fact, Kerry’s hunt was widely seen through as a transparent attempt to appeal to hunters. Every media story I saw on this was basically mocking him for it. For Factcheck to present this as some kind of evidence of anything is simply foolish.
Also, who are they to assume what the NRA seeks to do with the ad? By framing it this way “the NRA seeks to undermine” the bias against them is clear. The NRA isn’t underming anything. They are simply reporting the anti-gun history of Kerry for the voters to see. In any case, by making opinions known like this they are going beyond simply fact checking.
This is just flat out false to say that it wasn’t “aimed” at hunting ammunition. It would have outlawed most rounds commonly used to hunt deer. Even if it wasn’t “aimed” at them, it still affects them.
Bolding mine. This is the actual wording of the bill as factcheck states on the side of the page. The bolded section shows that any round capable of penetrating body armor is included. High powered hunting rifles are capable of penetrating body armor. A 30-06 round will fly right through the stuff, just because it’s so powerful. This is one of the most common hunting rounds in the country.
This is just false. It does not say “and”. It says “or”. It’s funny because factcheck ignores it’s own cite.
Any way you read this it has a simple meaning. If the Atty General determines that a round is capable of penetrating body armor than it’s included in the ban. OR … some other marketing and design things are looked at.
So, if you meet the criteria before the OR, you are included. I’m sure that the Atty General might determine these rounds to be capable of penetration of armor since I happen to know that they are.
Any person simply reading their own cites wouldn’t walk straight into a screw up like this, even on the SDMB. I really lose respect for factcheck on this one. They either just weren’t paying attention or are biased against guns or both.
I think this suggestion that Democrats should emphasize that they aren’t against hunting is pretty much a.) what the Democrats are doing now and b.) pretty unpersuasive to gun rights advocates. Whatever the Second Amendment means, surely it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting. That’s like responding to a question about the free speech clause of the First Amendment by talking about how much you enjoy playing Scrabble.
I think this list of States With Right To Bear Arms Provisions makes it pretty clear that hunting is not the point here: a handful of the states with gun rights clauses in their constitions mention “hunting” as part of a laundry list of Things One Can Do With Guns that are constitutionally protected, but none of them give that as the primary reason for a right to bear arms; overwhelmingly, gun rights are connected with collective and personal defense. Now, even if the Democrats don’t want to heavily emphasize the “collective defense” argument, since it has come to be associated with people who fear black helicopter flying agents of the One World Government, that still leaves them with the personal defense argument. I think that would be a lot more likely to peel off some of the single-issue gun voters than this business of showing Democratic candidates out blasting away at geese.
Hold on. You conveniently left out the words “that may be used in a handgun,” and then go on to talking about high powered hunting rifles. As I read it, it appears that the intent of this section is to focus on ammunition that is used in handguns, not long rifles. That’s why handguns are referred to in the text, and long rifles are not.
It is possible that the vague language used in the text could end up applying to hunting ammunition (ie, I just don’t know if a 30.06 round “may be used in a handgun”), but one would have to read the amendment selectively to claim that it is “aimed” at hunting ammunition. I agree that factcheck.org did a poor job analyzing the amendment, but those who are claiming that it intended to ban hunting ammunition are doing an equally poor job of reading it.
The jist of S 1431 is that the “pistol grip” language pretty much applies to ALL semi auto shotguns. The California legislature, in its misguided attempt to curb crime by banning “assault weapons” did an excellent job defining what a pistol grip is and is not. This is not the case in S 1431.
While S1431 never came up for a vote, it was co-sponsored by Kerry. In my mind, and that of most other free thinkers, co-sponsoring a bill means that one agrees with it completely in its current form. S 1431, in the form that Kerry co-sponsored it would have banned production on most if not all semi auto shotguns. This is a direct threat to hunting and sportsmen… period.
His attacks on hunting ammo are well documented previously. I only add that those too make him a threat to sportsmen.
There are several handguns, some built by Remington and Winchester, built for hunting that will chamber pretty much every hunting round available from .308, 30-06, and even .223. The convenient absence of the handgun phrase is irrelevant. If those rounds are banned because they can be used in a handgun, then they are banned from use in the rifles as well.
Right, and I agree. Thus the Constitution is, indeed, binding not only on the federal government but the states as well.
You were arguing, I thought, that a literal interpretation of the Constitution was what the Democrats were doing all along, in pushing for more and more restrictions on gun ownership.
The state, as established above, has no right to overrule the rights of the people. One of those rights is to keep and bear arms, and this may not be infringed, either by the federal government nor by the states.
The first part of the Second Amendment talks about a militia. It does not talk about how the state or the feds can overrule the right. It states rather unambiguously that there is a right to keep and bear arms, that this right belongs not to the federal government nor to the states, but to the people. The people can keep and bear arms, just like the people have the right to petition government for redress of grievances, and so forth.
If the Dems want plausiblity on guns, they can’t play word games with the Constitution.
Many gun owners, and nearly all gun-rights groups, did not regard Kerry’s record as one favorable to their interests.
Kerry’s record would lead one to this conclusion. There is really no other way of stating it. Gun owners who opposed Kerry did so on an honest appraisal of his record, not an overblown political image.
The only questions left are whether this is a correct position, based on the Constitution and the nature of crimes committed with guns; and whether Kerry lost a net number of votes with his stand.
I believe Kerry’s positions on this score go too far toward banning guns and ammunition needed for legitimate purposes. I also believe this position lost him votes in swing states where he needed them.
I think this is a hijack. 2004 is over. Kerry did not win, for a lot of reasons, and I didn’t see a hell of a lot of media interest in the gun issue, or online interest, either. I’m thinking about 2006 and 2008 here. I see a lot of upside and very little downside for the Dems in backing completely away for gun control.
Oh, Lord love a duck, JX. With all the serious shit this is about, after GeeDubya looked you right in the eye and lied through his teeth… You voted against Kerry because maybe he wouldn’t let you empty a clip into Bambi’s mom?
I know, elucidator! It’s sooo very frustrating. You rant and rave all day long. Yet, there are still those who dare to disagree with you. They have different values and are voting based on different issues than YOU. The nerve of these people. How dare they?
What did his statement have to do with Bush? He stated why he didn’t vote for Kerry, meaning that was the issue that broke the proverbial camel’s back. That doesn’t make him a hunter, a Bush supporter, or a single-issue voter, though he might be all three.
As an aside, I find the anti-gun rhetoric rather fascinating. Pro-gun-control (pgc) people say that they don’t want to take away all guns, certainly not hunting guns. Then, if someone defends guns, they always seem to attack hunters, usually insinuating that they are rednecks for hunting (which means that if John Kerry hunts, he’s a redneck, or what?). But I thought it was the hunters that pgc people weren’t trying to drive off? Maybe JXJohns wants to empty a clip in Bambi’s mom, which is not only legal but encouraged here, or maybe JXJohns wants to empty a clip into a target, or maybe JXJohns wants his gun for home protection which means he’s hoping like hell he’ll never have to empty a clip into anything.
I honestly think that the same people sit down and compile rhetoric for the anti-gun and anti-gay campaigns. Y’all have the same speechwriters.
I strugled to find a reason to vote for Kerry over Bush, but his conduct in the Senate regarding our (yours too) gun rights was too much. Here is a guy that is personally attacking civil liberties, just as you and many others claim Bush is doing as well. I guess depending on which amendments to the Constitution are being attacked, one candidate is more palatable than the other. I never said who I voted for either smart guy. Just whom I did not vote for.
The thing that got me the most is when Kerry, with a shitty record regarding guns, had the nerve to come to my state during the caucuses and invite a bunch of reporters to come to his photo-op hunt. Then he does it again in Ohio a few weeks ago. I guess the last 20 years of being an anti gunner are supposed to be forgotten when he dons camo and totes a double barrel shotgun? Did anyone ever see a picture of him HOLDING the goose he shot in his ads? How about the pheasants he shot in Iowa? I wonder why?
I like the argument (and have pretty much the very same feelings about guns as you), but there is one potential factor that could be damaging. I’m just afraid that the slippery slope has already begun, and now we are getting very overt gestures of acquiescence that could further embolden conservatives and simultaneously diminish the spirit of the party. Retreat is a sign and symptom of impending defeat. The net psychological effect of the loss in strength of the party may outway the gains in gun votes.
Is the heart of liberalism compromised through this action to any significant degree? I ask only because I am not sure how strong that connection is. (keep in mind that there have already been a great amount of consessions)
What happens WHEN the tide turns back again towards liberalism. Can we then just conveniently return to pushing the gun control rights button with our new found strength and flip flop and go back to the values that apparently we never had to begin with. No, that won’t wash very well. What would happen without a strong pro gun opposition?