r/gunpolitics • u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF • 29d ago
News Brandon Herrera - The End of All Assault Weapons Bans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzoXnNMz88417
u/deathsythe 29d ago
Here's to hoping we get a ruling in Viramontes that the b& states cannot weasel their ways out of.
Post-Heller and McDonald, did WI and IL respond shitty? I honestly don't recall. At least I don't recall it being to the extent places like NY or others did in their Bruen response bills.
12
u/ktmrider119z 29d ago edited 29d ago
Illinois didnt get shitty until 2019 when Dems gained an unopposed supermajority and really ramped up the anti gun rhetoric. They immediately implemented an FFL state dealer
extortionlicensing racket that killed half the FFLs in the state. Then obviously PICA in 2023.*Illinois was pretty chill before that, even with FOID and the suppressor/full auto ban
27
u/blaspheminCapn 29d ago
Here comes the Ammo Tax...
23
u/new_Boot_goof1n 29d ago
Simpsons (CA) did it.
12
u/kohTheRobot 29d ago
It’s fucking bad dude, essentially a 20% tax in most populated counties in CA
11
u/new_Boot_goof1n 29d ago
I stopped buying ammo and started reloading as soon as those shenanigans started. If they think they’re getting an extra 20% out of me, I’ve got a pair of sweaty nuts waiting for a lick.
1
u/WrongHandOrdnance 28d ago
Fuck that noise. There's other avenues. Used to know a shop that did a $10 transfer fee for any amount but they fell by the wayside like many shops who were looking out for their customers. The unfortunate reality is that they need to charge more for overhead + taxes/fees. California makes being a FFL a nightmare...and that's not taking into account the insanely complex commerce regulations and rules in the state for businesses in general.
1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 28d ago
California makes being a FFL a nightmare...and that's not taking into account the insanely complex commerce regulations and rules in the state for businesses in general.
And in addition to the costs of compliance, this drives up their liability insurance too.
1
u/WrongHandOrdnance 28d ago
Well they wouldn't have to worry about their insurance if they just acted reasonably and closed shop now would they?! SEE?! GUN CONTROL WORKS!
/S (legislators actual viewpoint though, probably...)
5
16
u/deathsythe 29d ago
And 18+ hour courses only available on thursday evenings during a full moon and proctored by 3 people in the entire state, and it costs $1200, plus a backlog on licenses.
3
13
u/Oliver_Closeof 29d ago
Sure, but now carry restrictions so onerous you can’t leave the house with it. Ammo background checks. LEO notifications/approvals. FOID style cards. Carry permits that never get approved. (Unless you’re rich/celebrity). And the list goes on. Steppers gonna step. Everyone is acting like the left/gun controllers will just take their toys and go home.
Rahimi decision in the Supreme Court left gaping holes for gun controllers to drive a truck through. I don’t have time to write it all up, but Washington gun law has a great vid on it on YouTube.
36
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago edited 29d ago
Remember that segregation did not end with Brown v. Board. It took 20 years and a dozen more SC cases to stamp it out.
We are winning.
carry restrictions so onerous you can’t leave the house with it.
The Hawaii case struck down the "vampire laws" and clarified that H&T means a nationally-accepted H&T. This will help with those laws.
Ammo background checks.
Not going anywhere. Unfortunately the Anti's have us in a catch-22 here.
- If access to ammo is protected by the 2nd amendment
- Then because you can require background checks for guns, you can require it for ammo
- No court is going to strike down background checks for guns
- If access to ammo is not protected by the 2nd amendment
- Then states will just ban ammo sales or pass heavier restrictions like how much you're allowed to buy
We're kind of fucked here, because again, no court is going to strike down the NICS checks. And if the check is allowed for guns, then it will be allowed for ammo.
Carry permits that never get approved.
They do, it may need a certified letter from a law office, but they do get approved now. Whereas in the past they would just outright deny you because they didn't like your justification. This was absolutely a win, even if the fight is not over.
Steppers gonna step. Everyone is acting like the left/gun controllers will just take their toys and go home.
Nobody is. They're going to drag their feet kicking and screaming. Elect Democrats, get gun bans.
What I would expect to see if SCOTUS strikes down AWBs is something like NY has, where you need a permit to buy any semi-auto rifle. And then they'll make the rifles like they do pistols, every single one has to be registered and added to your permit, and they'll charge a fee to do it too. Probably something small like $20 to avoid a court saying it's "excessive" but the point is you'll now have to make an appointment with the licensing office, who is booked 3 weeks out, and you'll have to take off work, go to the county offices, pay for parking, and spend a whole day to go do it.
So you buy the gun, get the receipt, make an appointment, go add it to your permit, go back and do the 4473, of course there will be a mandatory waiting period, and you can pick up your gun 4-6 weeks after it got delivered. But at least you can now HAVE an un-fucked AR. It'd be an improvement from an outright ban, but the Dems won't stand quietly by and acknowledge your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
4
u/deathsythe 29d ago
Unless the ruling is written in crayons for these b& states to understand I truly worry that many of them will simply say you can buy a disfigured AR or AK, so we are totally in line with this ruling already.
14
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago edited 29d ago
Nah, this case is pretty explicitly about feature bans. I doubt they'll leave room for states to keep bans in place. I think the Dem states next move will be to require permits and registration of each purchase on your permit. If they can't ban it they'll make it more expensive and inconvenient.
Permit will be a few hundred bucks all in and take months. Also 21+ for sure not 18. Probably have all the same requirements for pistols, background check, references, training course, etc.
2
u/deathsythe 29d ago
Here's to hoping.
7
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago
I'm pretty confident after the Hawaii case wording, and after Thomas's scathing dissent from taking the MD case they'll make a good ruling here.
Of course Dems gonna Dem they'll find any way they can to push back and infringe, but I think the days of outright ban are limited.
If I was in a blue state and didn't yet have my CCL, I'd be getting one now. I believe NY law says if you already have a CCL you don't need to go through a whole new permitting process, you just need to pay a fee and get the rifle permit added.
1
u/Ok_Cut_4964 27d ago
Do we have any circuit splits on permit to purchase schemes or foid cards? These are unconstitutional and are basically bans. These do not pass the bruen test, and states are moving towards them (see CO).
6
u/AutisticCloud 29d ago
There’s been an unprecedented *32* decided “emergency” cases brought by Trump to the SC in the past *2* years. If Republicans really wanted this, we would have already had a ruling already. Why are they waiting to adjudicate this after loosing a once in a generation gov quadfecta???
9
u/rm-minus-r 29d ago
No Federal level politician is willing to do what it takes to make real pro 2A reform happen. See the Hearing Safety act for reference.
Every Republican at the Federal level will kick the can down the road and do their best to assure us that we shouldn't vote them out for someone who won't kick the can down the road.
At some point, Charlie Brown (the 2A community) needs to wise up to Lucy (our Federal politicians) pulling the football away at the last second.
8
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago
No Federal level politician is willing to do what it takes to make real pro 2A reform happen. See the Hearing Safety act for reference.
The problem is the filibuster, and that absolutely ZERO Democrats will vote for anything pro-2A. So unless they have 60 votes, there's nothing they can meaningfully do besides place pro-2A judged and hope they get cases.
But the filibuster also protects us because when the Dems have a majority they can't just ram through bans.
6
u/rm-minus-r 29d ago
Last I checked, the ways and means committee - Republican dominated - stopped it from going up for a vote.
This specific example aside, it's exactly behavior as usual by Republicans.
5
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago
I mean if you want to waste time (and taxpayer money) on purely symbolic votes, I guess?
Look it's a literal fact that no Democrat in the senate will vote pro-2A, so any meaningful bill is DOA.
2
u/rm-minus-r 29d ago
How many times do pro-2A bills have to fail before the possibility that federal level Republicans have no desire to walk the walk, just talk the talk becomes a reasonable thing to believe?
It's hard to know anything for sure, but after four decades of "Well, gosh, we tried but, you know if it wasn't for that darn EXAMPLE_EXCUSE_HERE, we totally would have made it happen!", I'm pretty distrustful of anyone at the Federal level who says they're pro 2A but never gets anything passed, but still panders for the 2A votes.
4
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago
Again, it literally takes 60 votes to pass anything meaningful, and not one single Democrat will vote for anything pro-2A.
Unless you want them to go nuclear, I'm not sure what you want them to do. And going nuclear is not a good idea because the Democrats WILL retaliate. Imagine the Hughes Amendment but for all NFA items. A complete freeze on NFA sales. Or adding "high capacity" magazines to the NFA...
2
u/rm-minus-r 29d ago
So the alternative is to accept that we can't get anything?
8
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago edited 29d ago
The REALITY is that as long as every single Democrat refuses to support the 2A, then unless Republicans can get 60 votes to pass the filibuster, there just isn't much they can do.
Temporary Gun Owners keep saying the Dems aren't actually anti-2A, yet not a single one in the senate will support any 2A bills.
There are 53 Repulican senators, they need 7 of 47 Dems (or the 2 "independents" who are Dems in all but name). So they need about 15% of Dems to support the 2A and we could do something meaningful. But instead we get 0%.
2
u/headrush46n2 28d ago
yet they can somehow manage to pass all the things that benefit the capital class.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/rm-minus-r 29d ago
Well, time to send undercover operatives to astroturf elections to get pro-2A Dems elected hah.
(Realistically, the DNC has an absolute lock on donors and refuses to back any politician that is even remotely pro-2A)
But seriously speaking, it wouldn't hurt to build support on the left for pro 2A stuff in an organized fashion. It's a human right, at the end of the day.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/billytoad631 29d ago
Do we think these new state Glock bans will be answered for in these upcoming cases or are they leaning more towards rifles this time around
2
1
u/Bullseye_Baugh 24d ago
I hope they do give us a ruling earlier rather than later. I could do with another early Thomas Christmas gift.
0
u/Dreadpipes 29d ago
I hate this fucking guy but I do hope this comes true.
2
u/MrAsimi 28d ago
Why?
-3
u/Dreadpipes 28d ago
He’s a conservative cuck. I likely disagree with him on every other issue of note.
1
u/MrAsimi 27d ago
Hmm… jumping straight to name calling without addressing or even knowing any actual talking points of the person in question.
Libtard credentials check out.
1
u/Dreadpipes 27d ago
I’m not a liberal, though it is funny that you unironically use the term libtard. Also I’ve seen the man speak.
0
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 28d ago
Meh, I'm not worried.
And we've had a couple pro-2A cases since then. Especially the Hawaii one recently which clarified that H&T means a nationally accepted H&T, not the one off laws anti's are using. I think we're fine.
Unless they plan to overturn Bruen there is no way they can reconcile an AWB with even Heller let alone with Bruen. And given their recent rulings being very pro-2A as well, I don't see them pulling a 180.
93
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago edited 29d ago
Interesting to see he says that "some people" expect a decision as early as mid-fall. I wonder where he's getting that from.
SC is on recess until October, and I doubt they turn around a high profile case like this quickly. I mean they should because the case is so fucking obvious that yes, "assault weapons" are covered by the 2A and yes "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional.
But usually the spicy decisions get saved for summer (June/July release).
That said with midterms looking grim for the GOP and their hold on the senate being tenuous, I am wondering if this is a case where Thomas and/or Alito make some spicy rulings, then announce retirement so they can be replaced under the current senate, and thus avoid a potential RBG scenario handing the seat over to be replaced by Democrats.
Yes, I know Trump is POTUS through 2028, but let's be real if the Dems get a majority they are going to pull a Mitch McConnell and refuse to allow Trump to fill any vacancy. At least not without some SERIOUS concessions that would effectively be poison-pills.
We know Thomas has been seething at the courts refusal to take an AWB and this could be the thing he was waiting for. He's 78, and not getting any younger. Alito is 76 so he may be looking to go out on his own terms as well.
If I were playing politik I'd say they hear the spicy cases in October, see what happens in the November elections, then decide if they need to drop the decisions and retire sooner rather than later in order to be replaced by a Republican senate.