Can the Supreme Court or Obama eliminate CHL's

[stroo]

Someone said that the President doesn't make laws, only Congress can. Wish that were true. Federal Regulatory agencies, which are appointed by the President, have broad "rulemaking" authority. In essence, Congress authorized them to make law in certain areas. Treating ammo as hazardous material can be done by rulemaking without any vote in Congress. In other words, the President through the appropriate Federal agency can make laws that effectively ban ammo.

[austin]

There are a lot of Democrats in the house and senate who are pro-gun. Zack Space and Webb are just two.

Over 85 Democrats voted for repealing the DC ban on handguns.

Obama can try what he wants, but he won't get very far if he wants to keep a lock on both houses.

2010 features more Dem seats than GOP up for grabs in the Senate and with what BHO wants to do, he will likely be as unpopular as Clinton was in 94.

In addition, there are laywers working the Heller decision and building up the case law.

I am not pro-BHO, but I am also not going to panic.

On another note, how many of YOU have promoted or advocated CHL within the minority communities and worked via your community groups to do outreach on this?

[The Annoyed Man]

Of the two, a leftist SCOTUS, or a government unified under the Democrat party, a leftist SCOTUS is far more dangerous to our gun rights. However, it would require the legislative to be united with the executive under the Democrat banner for that to happen. And even it it were so, remember what the Democrats did to Republican judicial nominations, even in a Republican majority Congress. Even so, we did succeed in getting Roberts and Alito (even if it took the better part of 8 years); so it is not at all inconceivable that a Democrat President and Congress could wind up getting a couple of new justices through (think about that, anybody who is considering voting for a third party candidate this year). Furthermore, for better or for worse, Republicans have shown themselves to not have the spine to use the same obstructionist tactics in the Judicial Committee that the Democrats used to hold up most of Bush's appointments.

The key is whether they will be replacing just Ginsberg and Stevens, or Kennedy also. If it's just Ginsberg and Stevens, then the balance of the court does not shift dramatically. You still have 4 liberals and 4 conservatives with Kennedy as the swing vote, and remember that Kennedy threw Heller in our favor. He is currently 72 years old (Stevens and Ginsberg are 88 and 75 respectively). If Kennedy retires also, then we are trapped way up high on Bandini Mountain without a pair of skis. And remember, Scalia is 72 years old also. If he retires or dies, now it's four SCOTUS appointment. Bryer is 70. Need I go on?

So if you are genuinely worried about your gun rights, then you have no alternative but to vote, and vote Republican. They are not perfect, and I am seriously considering re-registering as an independent after the election because of my disappointment with the party, but right here and right now, they are the only realistic choice we have. Vote anything else, and you are guaranteed an Obama presidency and strongly risk a leftist court. And with a leftist court, you will have leftist (read that "gun-grabbing") policies in your face well beyond the 8 years of Obama's administration. And heaven help us if Hillary gets elected after he's finished.

As for those Democrats that we consider to be good on gun rights... Remember what the party did to Lieberman because he wasn't in lock-step with the party in the War on Terror and Iraq issues. With a liberal court, a socialist president, and a large enough majority in Congress, don't think for one minute that the Democrat party won't throw those gun rights supporters under the bus. If they have to choose between ditching the Brady Bunch's funding, or ditching a few recalcitrant dinosaurs who believe in the Bill of Rights, the dinosaurs will be "found another line of work" as McCain is fond of calling it.

Nope. Vote. Vote right. Just don't vote often. That's a Democrat tactic.

[srothstein]

There is a myth that the Texas Constitution allows for secession. It cannot possibly do so since it cannot overrule the Federal Constitution and law. SCOTUS ruled way back, just after the last attempt that joining the union is permanent. We cannot legally secede.

The good news is that some liberals have been threatening to kick the red states out of the union. There have been a couple posts like that on TX.Guns. I keep asking if it is a promise and promising to vote for Obama if they will kick the red states out. Unfortunately, it is only the loons with no concept of reality that make those kind of statements.

So, I think we are going to be in the union for a good long time still. Lets do our best to make it work. The best news I can see is that it is still a close race in most battleground states. Also, more of Obama's supporters are younger, and we know they show up at the polls less than the middle aged and older voters. I think if Obama does win (and it is likely though not sure), and gets a full Democratic congress (both houses in control), he will lose it in two years.

The one thing I am sure of is that the country will survive either way. We can move further to the left with both the Congress and the White House being Democratic, but we will survive. It may mean we have to work harder at the state level, but the state and local levels affect us more on a daily basis anyway. We will survive.

[gmckinl]

We will survive.

It's my sincerest hope that you are correct.

[GrillKing]

We will survive.

It's my sincerest hope that you are correct.

Ditto....

[bryang]

There was a saying that I use to hear all the time when I was very young, but haven't heard it for a very long time now..."The South Shall Rise Again!"

Seriously, this is all so very depressing.

-geo