Will the Heller decision hurt Obama's AWB?

[BerksCountyDave]

Do you feel the Heller decision will adversely affect Obama's ability to push through his new AWB? If so, how?

Vote above, discuss below.

[deputy]

The decision had nothing to do with AWB it just rendered an opinion on handguns in the home. Future lawsuits will determine how far his AWB reach will be.

[d90king]

No, it only affirmed the right to bear arms not what arms can be bared. They left room in the opinion for State regulation......................

[RocketFoot]

No...Obama's regime will ban guns from future purchase, we may be able to keep and bear them, but they might only consist of Red Rider BB guns - maybe shotguns and .22's if we good little sheeple!

[billamj]

The supremes specifically stated that regulation was a duty of the state but that they could not completely dismiss the right. My answer is no. Additionally there is a distinct possibility that he may be able to get one or two "modern thinkers" on the supreme court before the new AWB is enacted.

[LittleRedToyota]

yes, i do think the heller decision will lay the groundwork for an AWB being declared unconstitutional (and also sets the stage for rank-and-file democrat representative to not vote for it in the first place). here is why:

1. it obviously confirms that the 2nd is an individual right.

2. it obviously confirms that the 2nd is not about hunting.

3. it reaffirms that the 2nd protects weapons "in common use at the time". "assault weapons" are clearly in common use now. it actually references this concept that the 2nd protects weapons commonly used for lawful purposes several times...and ARs, AKs, full capacity glocks, etc are clearly commonly used for lawful purposes.

4. it doesn't completely set up a strict scrutiny standard, but does lean hard in that direction.

also, everyone who is worried about obama's supreme court picks (and i am too) does need to keep in mind that the justices who will likely be being replaced are ones who voted against us anyway.

[Eugene V. Debs]

yes, i do think the heller decision will lay the groundwork for an AWB being declared unconstitutional (and also sets the stage for rank-and-file democrat representative to not vote for it in the first place). here is why:

1. it obviously confirms that the 2nd is an individual right.

2. it obviously confirms that the 2nd is not about hunting.

3. it reaffirms that the 2nd protects weapons "in common use at the time". "assault weapons" are clearly in common use now. it actually references this concept that the 2nd protects weapons commonly used for lawful purposes several times...and ARs, AKs, full capacity glocks, etc are clearly commonly used for lawful purposes.

4. it doesn't completely set up a strict scrutiny standard, but does lean hard in that direction.

also, everyone who is worried about obama's supreme court picks (and i am too) does need to keep in mind that the justices who will likely be being replaced are ones who voted against us anyway.

We can only hope so. Unfortunately we don't have much control over that. What we do have a limited amount of control over is influencing our Congresspeople to vote no. Start writing them, ESPECIALLY Casey and Specter. The Senate is our best hope for stopping AWB.

[ThomasJ]

No, it only affirmed the right to bear arms not what arms can be bared. They left room in the opinion for State regulation......................

I think they said that particular issue was not included in the suit and therefore would not be ruled upon, keeping the door open for suits challenging regulations.

[LittleRedToyota]

The Senate is our best hope for stopping AWB.

i actually think the house is a better hope. there are many more democrats in the house who are beholden only to rural, pro-gun constituents. most senators focus on the large cities in their states.

however, we need to fight the battle in both chambers anyway.

[Eugene V. Debs]

i actually think the house is a better hope. there are many more democrats in the house who are beholden only to rural, pro-gun constituents. most senators focus on the large cities in their states.

Agreed in terms of where it will be easiest to kill the bill outright on a vote, but I think it will be easier to sustain a filibuster in the Senate.

however, we need to fight the battle in both chambers anyway.

Absolutely.