Hypothetically, What Could Happen if the Worst Comes to Pass?

[Quad]

Assuming for a second that Obama gets re-elected.

2 or 3 SCOTUS justices retire, and Obama appoints 2 or 3 die hard liberals that decide to revisit the Heller or Mcdonald decisions? Or some of the anti's decide to push some new cases their way.

If pass decisions are overturned, or new cases are imposed upon us saying that the 2nd isn't an individual right to bear arms, what happens?

Does it immediately turn all the honest law abiding gun owners into criminals? Or does it just give the libs more firepower (no pun intended) to pursue strict gun control legislation on the state and federal level? Would the conservative states still have the right to keep loose gun control laws on their books, or would they have to abide by the new SCOTUS decisions word for word, assuming they basically said their is no right to keep and bear arms?

With the NRA beating the drum on how this is how it could play out, needless to say, it has me curious.

Help me out INGO. What could happen?

 

[TheRude1]

 

[LEaSH]

Look to other countries' past to get an idea. Australia for example.

It would probably start with registration then in a matter of years move to a collection of all those registered firearms.

Penalties would be harsh.

 

[Ted]

Look to other countries' past to get an idea. Australia for example.

It would probably start with registration then in a matter of years move to a collection of all those registered firearms.

Penalties would be harsh.

Perhaps, but then again.............

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it........" Senator Diane Feinstein, (D) CA, February 5, 1995

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[dom1104]

Doesnt take a genious to see how its going to play out.

I got a few guns now, but I will be sellin a lot off if O gets re-elected, down to just a bare minimum.

It would suck to have 10+ guns to have to regester, and then eventually have taken away.

Would rather sell em, buy a new motorcycle, and hang on to my carry gun as long as the powers that be let me.

 

[buckstopshere]

The S will HTF

 

[mrjarrell]

How would he ever get registration past the congress? There's no hunger for it, even on the dem side. It's poisonous. Same for confiscation. I just cannot see this happening under any circumstances, where it didn't lead to war in the streets. Why pass a law that would be disobeyed consistently? I wouldn't register any of my weapons. Don't know many people who would follow a directive like that. The government couldn't deal with the prospect of a thousand Ruby Ridges. And that's exactly what would happen. These are worst case scenarios, but they're not really realistic, given the likely makeup of congress.

 

[jbombelli]

I imagine he'll ban importation of AK parts kits and mags by executive order.

 

[mrjarrell]

I imagine he'll ban importation of AK parts kits and mags by executive order.

Over regulation via the BATFU is a possibility. I just don't see anything truly draconian coming at us if he's re-elected. The dems in the senate and house still have to get re-elected after he leaves office. They're not going to let him sink their chances with electorate. They've already shown they don't have the will or votes to advance many of his pipe dreams..

 

[thompal]

Why pass a law that would be disobeyed consistently?

You mean like criminalizing marijuana?

 

[mrjarrell]

You mean like criminalizing marijuana?

I think the scale is a bit different. More like bringing Prohibition back. With all the fatalities. But, more people would be shot if they tried to take guns away and many, if not most, gun owners wouldn't register. I certainly wouldn't. It's just not something I see happening. I'm sure he could manage to further screw up the economy and let the debt balloon some more, but confiscation and registration would be suicidal for the politicians inside the Beltway.

 

[Quad]

So you are saying that basically it sets the scale for complete registration and confiscation?

And there is nothing that individual states would be able to do about it?

Wow! Hard to believe that one court case could bring about such a terrible outcome!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Throwing obama out of office by no means insures appointment of constitutional, original intent, types of justices. (See recent Obama care ruling and Roberts' treachery for example). However, if history is any indication, his re-election will most assuredly mean more Kagan's, Ginsberg's, Breyer's, etc. it also means packing more of the lower courts with judges if similar philosophies. Liberals seem to bat 1.000 when it comes to nominating judges.

Even if obama does get to replace justices, the fall out wont be immediate. But the few tenuous restraints we have on the legislation will certainly evaporate as liberals (and their pliant "conservative" cohorts) seem to always find constitutional justification for progressive lawmaking. Worst of all, the legecy, and it's effects, wil last for decades.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Throwing obama out of office by no means insures appointment of constitutional, original intent, types of justices. (See recent Obama care ruling and Roberts' treachery for example). However, if history is any indication, his re-election will most assuredly mean more Kagan's, Ginsberg's, Breyer's, etc. it also means packing more of the lower courts with judges if similar philosophies. Liberals seem to bat 1.000 when it comes to nominating judges.

Even if obama does get to replace justices, the fall out wont be immediate. But the few tenuous restraints we have on the legislation will certainly evaporate as liberals (and their pliant "conservative" cohorts) seem to always find constitutional justification for progressive lawmaking. Worst of all, the legecy, and it's effects, wil last for decades.

At best it has been an uphill battle since Franklin Roosevelt was able to pack the courts bringing us such gems of constitutional disaster as Wickard v. Filburn. It makes me wonder if recovery is possible under any circumstances, especially given that liberal apointees always remain such and conservative apointees may or may not be anything approaching conservative.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

At best it has been an uphill battle since Franklin Roosevelt was able to pack the courts bringing us such gems of constitutional disaster as Wickard v. Filburn. It makes me wonder if recovery is possible under any circumstances, especially given that liberal apointees always remain such and conservative apointees may or may not be anything approaching conservative.

I share your concern. When you have judges espousing the desire to avoid overturning legislation duly debated and passed by congress and the senate insisting on nominees' adherence to starre decisis (sp?), the road to ruin seems certain.

 

[DRob]

The Prez

I think we need to bear in mind that the POTUS can't just DO things. He can say things and support things and encourage things but, unless he oversteps his authority, his power to DO things is limited. Unfortunately, we have already seen that Obama has no problem with the concept of overstepping his authority. Secondly, his reelection would likely mean four more years of questionable if not down right criminal activity from various parts of the current administration. That said, just about anything which has already been done, can be undone by the next POTUS whether it be next year or when Obama finishes a second term. The biggest concern is the lifetime appointment of SCOTUS justices which will very likely fall to our next POTUS. It's clear that many people are so single-issue focused they have no grasp of the importance of this.

If you're going to be a one-issue voter, let the issue be the appointment of new justices who will determine whether or not the challenges to the Bill of Rights (not just 2A) which will certainly happen, are decided by justices appointed by somebody other than Obama.

 

[downzero]

I think the scale is a bit different. More like bringing Prohibition back. With all the fatalities.

What do you think is happening with marijuana now?!

 

[Quad]

The S will HTF

Considering we've all heard the old saying "When the 2nd falls, the 1st won't be far behind", you may be more right than you know!

 

[mrjarrell]

What do you think is happening with marijuana now?!

Fewer fatalities than Prohibition or cocaine. But, I won't deny there are are pot related fatalities. It's a matter of scale. The drug war has created many victims. Just as a gun registration scheme or ban would do.