TexasCHLforum.com

Since they have not had much luck getting legislation passed for various gun control measures, gun control proponents are now trying to get ballot initiatives going to pass things via petitions and ballot measures locally.....

After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.

While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers. Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.

"It's more powerful if the voters do it — as opposed to our doing it," Pedersen said. "And it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more."

Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren't undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.

Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider.

http://news.yahoo.com/front-gun-backgro ... 44861.html

My thoughts exactly. Almost all of the sheep educated in what passes for school these days are educated in unnecessary classes, at the cost of civics, history, etc. That along with popular uneducated opinion causes most to think that everything is / should be done by majority vote. They all think we live in a strict democracy, rather than a representative republic.

When the voters of California approved an initiative defining marriage as between one man, one woman, the courts said it was unconstitutional. So they did another initiative this time amending the Constitution of California. The courts said it was unconstitutional.

Let that be a lesson.

JALLEN wrote:When the voters of California approved an initiative defining marriage as between one man, one woman, the courts said it was unconstitutional. So they did another initiative this time amending the Constitution of California. The courts said it was unconstitutional.

Let that be a lesson.

I'm just worried that the anti-guns people will try the same thing somewhere and the courts will applaud their efforts, at least at the local or state level....

It will be interesting anyway.

While a negative result would undoubtedly be unconstitutional, getting it to SCOTUS might be a tough battle.

OTOH, the possibility that such a referendum would fail might make a powerful argument against those who quote a flawed and biased poll as justification, although it will never shut them up, as they will claim that the NRA stuffed ballot boxes nationwide and besides that people were afraid of voting against the NRA.

The only true means of preserving, safeguarding, and defending the 2nd Amendment is to ensure we maintain a firm majority of the electorate on our side. If we do not maintain a firm electoral majority, then we are vulnerable to shenanigans. The Senators didn't back off because they were scared of the NRA. They backed off because they knew the NRA represented the opinion of a majority of voters (and had demonstrated the ability to mobilize those voters).

With that in mind, I encourage all of us to remember that that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture as we encounter fellow voters in our daily lives.

JALLEN wrote:When the voters of California approved . . .

There is an example state where we have not been able to maintain a firm majority of the electorate, and look at the results.

Jumping Frog wrote:The only true means of preserving, safeguarding, and defending the 2nd Amendment is to ensure we maintain a firm majority of the electorate on our side. If we do not maintain a firm electoral majority, then we are vulnerable to shenanigans. The Senators didn't back off because they were scared of the NRA. They backed off because they knew the NRA represented the opinion of a majority of voters (and had demonstrated the ability to mobilize those voters).

With that in mind, I encourage all of us to remember that that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture as we encounter fellow voters in our daily lives.

JALLEN wrote:When the voters of California approved . . .

There is an example state where we have not been able to maintain a firm majority of the electorate, and look at the results.

And this is the reason, despite the fact that some members of the party are pretty wishy-washy, that I will continue to vote Republican. Its still easier to corral members of YOUR party than to rely on the good graces of someone from the other party. (And yes, I know what anygunanywhere will say). When there is no perfect solution, you go with the best one you have on hand.

AndyC wrote:What part of "Constitutional Republic" do these idiots not get?

I don't care if 99% of folks vote for the return of slavery - the BoR trumps what the majority want.

Not to be the bearer of bad news, but I was under the impression that 3/4ths of the state legislators can get together and amend the Constitution. Unlikely, but still possible with less that 99% of folks agreeing.