Quote of the day—Sebastian

This just takes. The concessions are only things law and order GOP swamp creatures care about.

This bill is garbage and should be opposed, and any Republican who votes for this needs to be tossed out on their asses in a primary if they aren’t retiring.

June 22, 2022
Breaking Silence Over Gun Control
[The best thing I can say about it is that it isn’t as bad as I expected it would be.

All is not lost yet. It appears Senator Dianne Feinstein is improving the odds it will fail:

I just filed an amendment to the Senate’s bipartisan gun bill that would raise the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21.

I still think everyone that votes for it or contributes to the enforcement of it should be prosecuted.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sebastian

  1. Obviously, the Republican leadership does not love us. As Machiavelli noted, it is better to be feared than loved. I can’t think of a better way to instill fear than to cause the Republicans to lose a general election they are projected to win. The next few years would suck but they are going to suck anyway.

    Sadly, most will continue the losing strategy of voting for the lesser evil.

  2. Given the announcement of today’s ruling by SCOTUS, 6-3 in favor of scuttling New York’s shall issue, this bill is basically dead on arrival. The broad ruling invalidates a host of the gun controller’s favorites, like red flag laws, specific age limits on specific firearms types, and probably mag limits and bans. Clarence Thomas’s majority ruling eliminates the “intermediate scrutiny” test and requires all laws to meet the text, history and usage standards, so banning assault rifles because less than 3% of homicides are committed with them isn’t going to fly.

    I’d expect that the Washington magazine ban and red flag laws will be challenged and overturned – I would hope that the Washington supreme court will rule favorably in the FPC and CCRKBA lawsuits very quickly. Further, I’m stocking up on glass-filled nylon filament for 3D ghost gun production….

    • I’ll have to read the entire decision before agreeing it has that wide of impact.

      Even on the carry issue, I expect it will take years to get compliance from California, Hawaii, etc. Magazine bans? Perhaps a decade or more…

      • In the decision, Thomas makes very strong statements that the “two step method” of review (intermediate scrutiny) of the lower courts is rejected by SCOTUS. Strict scrutiny is the only legitimate standard of review for Second Amendment cases.

        This is a departure from the usual SCOTUS decision, where the wording and implications are narrowly tailored to implicate very, very similar circumstances. This decision’s statements about the standard of review were not framed narrowly.

        Not to worry, the various circuits will continue to ignore the guidance of SCOTUS, but this does set up a very straightforward cycle of behavior where cases go through the circuits, they do their own thing, and SCOTUS will slap down their decisions without even holding hearings.

          • Here’s the exact wording from the end of Thomas’s controlling opinion:

            The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-
            defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely
            different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guaran-
            tees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We
            know of no other constitutional right that an individual
            may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic-ers some special need. That is not how the First Amend-
            ment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
            exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment
            works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the
            witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second
            Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-
            New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Four-
            teenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens
            with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right
            to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment
            of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro-
            ceedings consistent with this opinion.
            It is so ordered.

  3. Yes, it’s piss poor legislation. With much to hate. The good thing in all this, is that people are waking up. Government has always been the problem. Always will be.
    And only awake people can change that.
    One can smell the desperation on the communists. They’re losing the culture war on guns.
    Not good for someone who’s entire plan depends on gun control.
    As the communist idol said, “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun”.
    This a classic example of hubris in action, on the part of the commies. Should have gotten the guns first.
    As you say Joe. It ain’t as bad as you expected. Imagine Chuck and Nancy’s disappointment?

  4. I suspect the reason the gun control folks were more reasonable is they knew Bruen would drop the way it did, and have chosen a strategy going forward of nibbling around the periphery of the right and seeing what sticks. That’s an improvement for us, but some of it inevitably will.

    • True. But all the more important to stick with, “Shall not be infringed”. As our line in the sand.
      It’s where we should have been all along.

Comments are closed.