The Heller Decision Vs. Executive Order?

Just a few short months ago gun owners were celebrating the Heller Supreme Court decision. Now we're quaking in our boots about what Obama might do when inaugurated with an "Executive Order". How will one fair against the other from a legal standpoint? Just how much damage can Obama do, and how much, if any, could be prevented by the Heller decision? It seems that once again, gun owners are fighting a losing battle regardless how much we win. Bill T.

Howdy -

You might look at New Orleans as an example. After hurricane Katrina, mass confiscation occurred. Gun owners were told they could retrieve their firearms at the Sheriff's office. When people went to get their firearms, they first were told they had to pass a background check, and for the ones that did, they were told it was a civil matter and had to file suit in court to regain their property. Of the few that went to court, many are still in litigation.

Regardless of Heller, Obama and the liberal stacked congress can pass any laws they want and force lawsuits, costing big bucks most people can't pay. As we have learned from Heller, anti-gunners will exploit any and every loophole knowing most people don't have the funds to fight them.

The biggest threat we face is the probability of ammo bans. You can't shoot it if you can't feed it. Since ammo is expendable, they know they can safely disarm America by banning it instead of large scale firearm confiscation. BATFE will turn it's attention on individuals with large stashes of ammo, knowing most individuals will run out in a relatively short time.

Regards - Ed

heller and the us constitution caN'T BE CHANGED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. MAY REQUIRE COURT ACTION IF ATTEMPTED.

heller and the us constitution caN'T BE CHANGED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. MAY REQUIRE COURT ACTION IF ATTEMPTED.

It doesn't really matter how Obongo and cohorts do it. THEIR plan is to disarm everyone in America prior to calling us slaves.

Somewhere on this board was an article about the liberal pinko Dems passing a law that a "reasonable" amount of ammo would be 250 rounds on each caliber. Anyone with more is "obviously" a "Tirroerist"

"WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" DID THEY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND?"

"WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" DID WE FAIL TO DEFEND?"

Just mt 2 cents worth.

The Heller Decision was 5-4... Obamanation will put 2 - 4 justices on the SCOTUS.. at least 2 in his first term. Any Challenge of Constitutionality would go to, lol, SCOTUS, who will then rule 6-3 Against the Constitutions Obvious meaning...

AND, the Heller case was as much a Defeat for us as a Victory... probably More a defeat, well.. for sure more.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms was a given, everyone with a working brain knew it, and knew what it meant. The Legality of Banning guns, controlling guns etc was never done Legally, there was nothing telling them they could, but a Strong second amendment that said Shall NOT be Infringed.. The Heller case GAVE them the ability to legally pass gun control laws if they are reasonable ... WTF is Reasonable ? Who decides that ?

It was a Loss for us, they upheld the RIGHT we KNEW we had, then cut it's legs off by making it OK to erode that right...

If Heller was a Victory, and gun Ownership in the USA was a Secure RIGHT..... there would be NO Panic Buying... Enough Said ! It was a Kick in the Nuts.

And to say that Ex Felons, People that have Paid their Debt to society in full are any less an American then you or I is Insane in it's self... That is just part of the Chipping Away "Common Sense" Gun Control propaganda that has been here long enough now for even some Pro Gun people to accept as OK. Shall Not be Infringed

drjarhead ,

Your Heart is in the right place, but your thinking is Flawed.. your repeating hipocritical propaganda.

How can Self Defense be a God Given, Inalienable right, yet a EX CON Not still posses the right ? Don't work that way Cupcake.. Simple fact of the matter is, EVERY FREE Man in the USA, that is a Citizen, has Every right guaranteed to him by the bill of rights. Not who society pics and chooses... The members of this very site may be the next "Class" of people that are prohibited from owning firearms.

We can't pick and choose, or read any deeper into the constitution that what it says. Shall Not be Infringed means ALL of us, even the ones that fuck up and then pay their debt to society.

The addition to the 1968 GCA of Felons not being able to own guns, was, in simple terms the Gov trying to prevent the people Most Likely to resist them from legally owning guns.

I don't agree with many parts of the Constitution, namely the Electoral college, I feel it's Outdated. BUT, I will fight till my last breath to protect it, it's the rules we live by. We either protect it ALL, in the literal meaning it has on paper... or we keep allowing it to be Gutted.

As to the OP, the Klintoon era AWB would be Reasonable, under todays standards and a Executive order can reinstate it. It can also be Updated and modified... with or without congress. Outright Importation bans can be done by Executive order as the first Bush, and Klintoon proved.

We have a long road ahead of us, and we don't need to fight in public over matters like this.. but the discussions DO need to happen, the subjects Need debated.

My ass!


Gun Control for one means Gun Control for all.


The fact that I have guns suggests that I have the means to protect myself from the evildoers yet to be exterminated. I don't need the gov't to protect me here like they did in the UK.

And given the number of felons actively walking our streets with guns (FA and otherwise), I'd say these laws only effect those who abide such laws which makes them (the laws) completely useless.

We, as Americans, are NOT required to obey unconstitutional laws... No matter what percentage of the people feels safer because of them.

I hear you guys and it would be better if people were armed and just wasted the f'ing scumbags when they presented the opportunity. However, there are some people who do not deserve their freedoms and some of those can be removed thru due process.

Yeah, it is not worth fighting over here.


Our entire society is going to hell. We will have to clean the legal slate and start fresh without all of the cardiac hemorrhaging.

When people commit irredeemable crimes and are justly convicted by a jury of their peers, their lives should be disposed of. If their crimes don't warrant condemnation to death, then they must not be stripped of effective means to defend themselves from violence. To do so is blatant infringement.

As for mental defectives... They are just a sad fact of humanity and should be kept in a facility until they die naturally.



And I certainly wouldn't fight against you for having a POV. I certainly would share a disagreement with the status-quo in the spirit of preventing its infection of the new era yet to be born.

If it ain't right, it's got to go.

now any of you who realy know how or were our
republic got its start will get this joke
"right now oliver cromwell is rolling lol'ing his ass off at all of us"

I've been charged with a fellony. Fellonies are given out like lollipops. You guys are worried about fellons? Better worry about your own ass. Fellons are armed, the only difference between you and a fellon is YOU are affraid to go to jail.

Scott

Let's all get in a circle and jerk eachother off. Come on now, more fun than arguing.

Scott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USJvOyFZ5H4

watch and learn

I've been charged with a fellony. Fellonies are given out like lollipops. You guys are worried about fellons? Better worry about your own ass. Fellons are armed, the only difference between you and a fellon is YOU are affraid to go to jail.

Scott


Pinellas County SUCKS!!!

The Heller Decision was 5-4... Obamanation will put 2 - 4 justices on the SCOTUS.. at least 2 in his first term. Any Challenge of Constitutionality would go to, lol, SCOTUS, who will then rule 6-3 Against the Constitutions Obvious meaning...

AND, the Heller case was as much a Defeat for us as a Victory... probably More a defeat, well.. for sure more.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms was a given, everyone with a working brain knew it, and knew what it meant. The Legality of Banning guns, controlling guns etc was never done Legally, there was nothing telling them they could, but a Strong second amendment that said Shall NOT be Infringed.. The Heller case GAVE them the ability to legally pass gun control laws if they are reasonable ... WTF is Reasonable ? Who decides that ?

It was a Loss for us, they upheld the RIGHT we KNEW we had, then cut it's legs off by making it OK to erode that right...

Are you smoking crack? Only one justice seems eminent, at 88yrs. of age... Ruth G. is next in line, a possible at 75yrs of age, but not a guarantee. If Obama is lucky, he will place only 2 scj's. Both of which will be liberals replacing liberals anyway, so it won't likely make any difference in the courts composition.

The Heller Decision was 5-4... Obamanation will put 2 - 4 justices on the SCOTUS.. at least 2 in his first term. Any Challenge of Constitutionality would go to, lol, SCOTUS, who will then rule 6-3 Against the Constitutions Obvious meaning...

The next Justice to be replaced would probably be Justice Stevens. He was born in 1920. As far as his record, well, not to bore anyone with details, but it seems that he started out as a rather conservative Justice (against affirmative action and for capital punishment earlier in his career) and then drifted to the left (generally sides with the Congress in the interstate commerce suits) and is clearly anti-gun (DC v Heller).

Interestingly, DC v Heller is _not_ even mentioned in the liberal-leaning Wikipedia's article on Justice Stevens.

My point is, anyone Obama appoints to take Stevens' place will be, at the worst, as bad as Stevens (unlikely) or someone better.