Gun Control Debate The NRA Gets Its Day In Court — and It Loses Unanimously
policymic
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has failed in an attempt to block a new gun regulation introduced by President Obama in July 2011, which will require gun dealers in border states to report multiple sales of semi-automatic weapons. In a unanimous ruling on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the claim by the NRA that the requirement was nothing more than an underhanded attempt to introduce a register of gun sales, which the NRA is vehemently opposed to.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at the time that the organization viewed the rule "as a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to pursue their gun-control agenda through backdoor rule making, and the N.R.A. will fight them every step of the way. There are three branches of government and separation of powers, and we believe they do not have the authority to do this." However, on Friday the three federal judges all rejected this claim and agreed that the Obama administration should be allowed to continue with implementation of the new rule.
Furthermore, the judges specifically rejected the NRA's argument that the rule would amount to the creation of a gun registry, saying that it "does not come close to creating a 'national firearms registry'" because it only applies to four states and only on a very limited basis. Under the rule, if there were no investigative leads arising from the information passed on to it after two years, the ATF would then delete it. Holders of federal firearms licences are already required to report multiple sales of handguns.
And the requirement for handguns was authorized, by law, for handguns only, not long guns. It's an unauthorized rule--the executive branch exercising legislative authority without Congress' authorizing them to.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that there's a process to appeals, not just one shot, right?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that you gun nuts are nuts. As the bodies mount up you fight for the right for more killing machines, that have nothing to do with your 2nd amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThen enlighten us, o Anonymous: What are our second amendment rights, and what do they cover?
DeleteI'm curious as well--what rights does the Second Amendment cover?
DeleteI'll answer that. In the words of Bill Maher, the 2A is bullshit. It is meaningless in today's world, in spite of the mistaken and nonsensical rulings of the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. Those were the result of political bastardization of an antiquated right which had long since lost all meaning.
DeleteMikeb, that's not how the law works. You can't just wish away something that you don't like.
DeleteThen using the answer of opinion entertainer such as Bill, you relegate yourself to be just as meaningless as Bill himself.
DeleteA loss in court makes one "look foolish"? I guess a loss in the Supreme Court makes one look really foolish.
ReplyDeleteEver hear of District of Columbia v. Heller? How, 'bout McDonald v. City of Chicago?
In the lower courts, how about all those lawsuits laughed out of court after the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed? How 'bout the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that finally pushed the Illinois legislature into overwhelmingly passing a bi-partisan "shall issue" concealed carry law?
Shall I go on?
The courts are the leftists' savior, except when they aren't.
DeleteLaPierre is not a fool.
ReplyDeleteHe is a whore for the munitions industry in the United States.
All thinking people wish to reduce gun traffic from the U.S. to Mexico and beyond. Is there any such legal traffic? It is not moral to manufacture dangerous firearms and care not whether or not they are sold to Mexican drug cartels and gangsters.
Ask one of the piece-of-shit right wing Americans who tried to call Obama and Holder to task for the failed effort to track guns south-of-the-border.
No guns from the U.S. to Mexico. This has to be a goal that we all share.
The problem is that Mexico is a package deal. If we're involved at all, we have to be deep in it. I'd be happy to pull out altogether, but that includes removing Mexico from NAFTA and putting up a big wall along our southern border.
DeleteThe primary source of trouble in Mexico is their government. That can only be changed when the Mexican people insist on it.
Ask one of the piece-of-shit right wing Americans who tried to call Obama and Holder to task for the failed effort to track guns south-of-the-border.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not a "right wing" American, and don't answer to "piece-of-shit," I have definitely done a lot of "call[ing] Obama and Holder to task for the failed effort to track guns south-of-the-border" (although "failed effort to track" the guns doesn't strike me as accurate, since no serious attempt to track them was ever made).
Anyway, as to your question of whether or not there is any legal traffic of firearms to Mexico, why yes, there is, in the tens of thousands. And you can bet that any of the thousands that soon end up in cartel hands, and are then recovered at crime scenes, are categorized as "guns from the U.S.," thus implicating the private, civilian gun trade.