Well, after this weekend’s capsizing accident I lost my AR-15. I’m accepting donations to replace it.
5 Likes
What if there’s a 2A opportunity in all this?
Play out this hypothetical. Suppose an anti-2A Congress, in all their unchecked fervor, goes off the deep end, banning all sorts of things that are bearable and in common use. This is immediately challenged as unconstitutional, given previous rulings by SCOTUS. The high court, in their current structure, is unlikely to overturn the court’s own legal test, and thus strikes down the law, setting a Judiciary precedent that the Constitution protects the rights of American citizens to own AR-15s.
Not saying it will happen, just saying it could.
2 Likes
It could… but SCOTUS has an easy out in that they just don’t hear the case.
And if they do… It just gives Biden & Co the push to pack the court.
2 Likes
Yeah, I thought of those possibilities, as well. I’m just saying that even in these threatening times, there is potential to strengthen the 2nd Amendment.
I don’t want to go down the route of court packing, though. If we ever get to that point, then the entire judiciary is subject to the whims of a sitting president, and our entire form of government is dead.
3 Likes
Brother, that already occurred with the rigged election. Cow is out of the barn and heading to the back forty at a clip.
5 Likes
Here is one more feather in your hat. The ATFE has already decided not to pursue prosecution on at least one case as the AR lower receiver does not meet the government CFR standard of a firearm. You can look up the daffynition yourself. So now if the powers that be decide OK it’s not a gun then can they ban/confiscate it under another gov’t clause protecting us from dangerous inanimate objects? Food for thought.
Cheers,
Craig6
2 Likes
I asked my firearms what they identify as, they told me “power drills”.
5 Likes
Love it. It is the perfect scene for America 
3 Likes
We might have jumped way ahead of ourselves here. The ATF has no way to know where to go to find our ARs, if we even had an AR. There is no national registry. Are they going to go door to door? Without a warrant? Will they be going into minority homes looking for weapons? Think about it, what would be the reaction to that?
The records of weapon purchases even in California are only kept at the store or FFl holder. The ATF doesn’t have records of those transactions. So it would be a logistic nightmare trying to track down all the ARs that have been" lost or given away “over the years.” As soon as the ATF starts “raiding” homes to see who has ARs then what ARs might be available will vanish into walls, vaults, and sealed chest under the plants in the back yard.
1 Like
They could do it like they did for the Polymer80 case. Track credit card transactions for pistol braces, uppers, barrels, weapon lights, etc. That gives them the “probable cause” to assume if you bought a piece of a firearm that it will actually go on a firearm.
Would they get everyone? No… but they’d get a lot of folks who didn’t pay for it in cash in person.
1 Like
Looking at the greater part of the population what percentage of the people have a weapon on their credit card? I used to think they had more resources than they did till I saw how hard it was to get records on active terrorist that committed crimes in the US. The San Bernardino shootings come to mind. They simply don’t have the people or resources to check every credit card purchase since the expiration of the last assault weapons ban. “In my opinion”.
To get a warrant from a judge they need reasonable cause before getting your purchasing records. Even as messed up as things are I can’t see many judges allowing such a massive undertaking as that.
As an aside I have to wonder how much it would cost to get the credit card records for all the people in the US and then get all the companies to release the same records for a fishing expedition? These people don’t work for free. “Once again my opinion”.
You are less pessimistic than I am
To be clear this is all hypothetical at this point. People wouldn’t need to purchase a whole firearm on a credit card, just buying anything firearm related could be used as an indication that you have a firearm. For example, why are you buying Hoppes unless it’s to clean a firearm?
More people pay via trackable credit or debit card than you would think. Any order placed online will be charged, including buying an entire firearm. Even if you buy in person at a store, most won’t be walking around with several hundred (thousands in some cases) of dollars in your pocket.
You can see the ATF’s recent handling of the Polymer80 case to see how they would do it. Sifting through a database of orders looking for specific items is not a time consuming process. You can either ask Visa for a list of customers who paid Brownells or you can ask Brownells for a list of customers who bought something.
As for a judge, most wouldn’t for sure but it only takes one to be pliable. And if they pass a law (or executive order) allowing it…
1 Like
Good point. But it only takes one judge to put a stay on an executive order.
I have read a national shooting organization suggests there are a bit over 17 million ARs in citizens hands. There are 470 million that have weapons to use Hoppies. A lot of door kicking to find 17 million of those out of more than 470 million. They aren’t that good. “As proven by Ruby Ridge and the The Branch Dividian fiasco. “
1 Like
It most emphatically is NOT unconstitutional to take firearms. That is, as long as due process is followed. It depends on the jurisdiction. If you threaten your spouse or children with bodily harm, LEOs may have just cause to seize all of your firearms. If you possess a fully automatic weapon without the appropriate tax stamp, the ATF can seize it. In reality, there are myriad ways that it is constitutional to take your firearms.
Remember: The only people who have the final say on when firearm seizure is legal is SCOTUS.
Just because what you say makes you feel good or safe doesn’t mean it’s actually what our founding fathers intended in the Constitution. You might want to take a step back and re-read “shall not be infringed”. I get where your coming from but technically removing all deadly weapons from a violent offender jus isn’t realistic. Someone just needs to arm the woman and/or a good neighbor. I don’t have a hood answer for that. But I know if he is bent on hurting his wife or children he can get a deadly weapon with ease.
You need to read District of Columbia v. Heller to understand that “shall not be infringed” does not mean what you think it does. This decision, written by Justice Scalia details several things that Federal, State and Local governments can do which “infringe” on the right to keep and bear arms. And remember, only SCOTUS gets to decide what the 2nd Amendment means.
Which is why, I suppose, “court packing” has become such a hot topic.
2 Likes
Yeah, the American Revolution was a time when the colonists had an opportunity to strengthen the 2A, as well. They just didn’t call it the 2A back then. Only the bloodthirsty and fools actually WANT a revolution or civil war. But they happen with frequency and predictability. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (First Baron Acton, 1887)
Coincidentally, that’s exactly what King George and the British Parliament thought, too! 
1 Like
A little historical irony: King George was only collecting his own arms at Concord. 