what senate rule change could mean for 2nd amendment

[mamabearCali]

This rule change has lasting effects and is a terrible harbinger of things to come. However this rule change could very much effect 2nd amendment issues.
Here is a summary of what happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/po ... .html?_r=0

They are packing the lower courts (for now) with radical leftists. So when a case goes to them with anything they don't like (including 2nd amendment) cases they will be able to make certain they can rule by fiat of judge when they can't get their legislation through the legislatures.

There is a reason one needs a super majority to end debate. It is to keep the tyranny of the majority from becoming rule of law. It is to protect our natural rights from the gov't.

The left is usurping all that in the effort to make their way of gov't last for a generation. Judges are on the bench longer than presidents and congressmen. This has far reaching consequences.

It is a bleak day. Once power is taken from the people it is not easily recovered.

Also if they can change this rule for the lower courts, there is nothing stopping them from changing it for the Supreme Court and other legislation. Imagine having to only get a majority to rule that all firearms must be turned in by X date, no exceptions. That could be now possible with just another "rule change". Horrifying.

[03Lightningrocks]

This rule change has lasting effects and is a terrible harbinger of things to come. However this rule change could very much effect 2nd amendment issues.
Here is a summary of what happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/po ... .html?_r=0

They are packing the lower courts (for now) with radical leftists. So when a case goes to them with anything they don't like (including 2nd amendment) cases they will be able to make certain they can rule by fiat of judge when they can't get their legislation through the legislatures.

There is a reason one needs a super majority to end debate. It is to keep the tyranny of the majority from becoming rule of law. It is to protect our natural rights from the gov't.

The left is usurping all that in the effort to make their way of gov't last for a generation. Judges are on the bench longer than presidents and congressmen. This has far reaching consequences.

It is a bleak day. Once power is taken from the people it is not easily recovered.

Also if they can change this rule for the lower courts, there is nothing stopping them from changing it for the Supreme Court and other legislation. Imagine having to only get a majority to rule that all firearms must be turned in by X date, no exceptions. That could be now possible with just another "rule change". Horrifying.

I saw that yesterday and was surprised it wasn't being discussed here yet. In his latest campaign speech yesterday, Obama included "common sense" gun laws as one of the issues he would like to get through with the new rules. Premier Obama is a serious threat to America's well being!

[VMI77]

They're very slowly floating the trial balloons. Today I started reading gun control mentioned in this context for the first time --in a NYT editorial.

[Cedar Park Dad]

DOA in the House and with the Obamacare fiasco, the Senate is now back in play.

[chasfm11]

DOA in the House and with the Obamacare fiasco, the Senate is now back in play.

Not before they do a lot of damage. The elections aren't until November. I shudder to think what can happen until then.

[Cedar Park Dad]

DOA in the House and with the Obamacare fiasco, the Senate is now back in play.

Not before they do a lot of damage. The elections aren't until November. I shudder to think what can happen until then.

A whole lot of nothing.

[mamabearCali]

I hope you are right CPD. I really do. I am afraid at what they will try though. Truly scary times we live in these days.

[SlickTX]

Look on the bright side. If something as central as the 2nd Amendment could be overturned by a simple majority, then something as harmful as Obamacare could likewise be overturned.

The Dems may have only outsmarted themselves.

[Robert*PPS]

If the majority can simply change the rules, then realistically speaking, there are no rules.

[chasfm11]

DOA in the House and with the Obamacare fiasco, the Senate is now back in play.

Not before they do a lot of damage. The elections aren't until November. I shudder to think what can happen until then.

A whole lot of nothing.

Sorry but if they load the courts with a lot of judges, that will have a significant impact.

[The Annoyed Man]

Once power is taken from the people it is not easily recovered.

Also if they can change this rule for the lower courts, there is nothing stopping them from changing it for the Supreme Court and other legislation. Imagine having to only get a majority to rule that all firearms must be turned in by X date, no exceptions. That could be now possible with just another "rule change". Horrifying.

Actually, there IS a way. . . . . .but no rational person would choose it as the first resort. It's called the 2nd Amendment. When it is time to lose it, it is time to use it. But democrats, not being able to play their folly forward to see where it leads, are not rational and do not make rational decisions. So we may end up having that last resort forced upon us.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I hope you are right CPD. I really do. I am afraid at what they will try though. Truly scary times we live in these days.

try what?
The Republicans control the House. The politicians aren't going to push for laws that lose votes. As they saw in Colorado, the pro-gun lobby still has strength.

[cb1000rider]

Actually, there IS a way. . . . . .but no rational person would choose it as the first resort. It's called the 2nd Amendment. When it is time to lose it, it is time to use it. But democrats, not being able to play their folly forward to see where it leads, are not rational and do not make rational decisions. So we may end up having that last resort forced upon us.

That's how we got here.. Democratic irrationality... You're 50% right.

The 2nd amendment is already lost. It was designed to be uninfringed, but we've got states and municipalities where firearm possession is illegal.. How it's still considered valid, I dunno.

We've got a government of professional politicians who are demographically and financially elite. There is so much partisanship that sides are being driven to more and more radical steps, resulting in further un-balance. We can't get approval of basic appointments, often not because there is disagreement of the appointment itself, but because that agreement is being held for ransom for some other piece of the political pie. The problems originate from both sides of the political spectrum, not just one, and are exacerbated by law makers who are set for life.

We've never seen so much gridlock...

[The Annoyed Man]

Actually, there IS a way. . . . . .but no rational person would choose it as the first resort. It's called the 2nd Amendment. When it is time to lose it, it is time to use it. But democrats, not being able to play their folly forward to see where it leads, are not rational and do not make rational decisions. So we may end up having that last resort forced upon us.

That's how we got here.. Democratic irrationality... You're 50% right.

The 2nd amendment is already lost. It was designed to be uninfringed, but we've got states and municipalities where firearm possession is illegal.. How it's still considered valid, I dunno.

We've got a government of professional politicians who are demographically and financially elite. There is so much partisanship that sides are being driven to more and more radical steps, resulting in further un-balance. We can't get approval of basic appointments, often not because there is disagreement of the appointment itself, but because that agreement is being held for ransom for some other piece of the political pie. The problems originate from both sides of the political spectrum, not just one, and are exacerbated by law makers who are set for life.

We've never seen so much gridlock...

You're right, in that the republican party is partly to blame....Lord knows....but I think that democrats have done far more damage to the Constitution over the years than republicans have. The biggest republican blunder: the Dept of Homeland Kabuki.

But the 2nd Amendment isn't dead. Infringed upon....yes. But dead, no. I don't own "black rifles" because I'm enamored of the type. I own them because they are militia rifles, first and foremost. Yes, I shoot them for fun. Yes, I dress them up like Barbie Dolls. But that's not why I own them. I already have accurate hunting rifles and shotguns. I already have pistols for self defense/concealed carry. I already have a pump action shotgun for things that go bump in the night. But I own AR type rifles (and M1As, etc.) because they are militia rifles. . . .because I am a member of the unorganized militia (10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes). I don't advocate for going to war against my government, but that is the reason we have a 2nd Amendment, and I am prepared for the possibility that my government might go to war against me.

That those states and municipalities behave unconstitutionally does not make the Constitution invalid. What it does is make the politicians who passed those laws traitors and criminals. They will have their reckoning some day.

[McKnife]

You're right, in that the republican party is partly to blame....Lord knows....but I think that democrats have done far more damage to the Constitution over the years than republicans have. The biggest republican blunder: the Dept of Homeland Kabuki.

But the 2nd Amendment isn't dead. Infringed upon....yes. But dead, no. I don't own "black rifles" because I'm enamored of the type. I own them because they are militia rifles, first and foremost. Yes, I shoot them for fun. Yes, I dress them up like Barbie Dolls. But that's not why I own them. I already have accurate hunting rifles and shotguns. I already have pistols for self defense/concealed carry. I already have a pump action shotgun for things that go bump in the night. But I own AR type rifles (and M1As, etc.) because they are militia rifles. . . .because I am a member of the unorganized militia (10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes). I don't advocate for going to war against my government, but that is the reason we have a 2nd Amendment, and I am prepared for the possibility that my government might go to war against me.

That those states and municipalities behave unconstitutionally does not make the Constitution invalid. What it does is make the politicians who passed those laws traitors and criminals. They will have their reckoning some day.

Hear, hear!!!