Can the Supreme Court or Obama eliminate CHL's

[maximus2161]

After tonights debate Im reading how Obama is going to be the clear winner in the election, etc, etc. Personally, I hope its just excited talk from the Democrats. I keep hearing if Obama is elected his hand will tip the scale in the Supreme Court. If this were to happen...can the Supreme Court revoke, stop, or eliminate States from issuing CHL's? Or is that up to each individual State? Im a bit fuzzy on how this all works. But I am worried regardless the next president would eliminate our ability for law abiding citizens to carry.

Or is the real threat another Brady type ban?

[Pinkycatcher]

Yah it could be possible, the supreme court hasn't ruled on guns except Heller, and that was very narrow

[tbranch]

If BHO wins I think we're in for a difficult ride for a number of years. While CHLs have been left to the states, Federal Laws control and regulate some aspects of gun ownership. DC v Heller was a 5 to 4 vote so we may be okay until BHO gets to appoint a new judge to SCOTUS who may or may not shift the balance of the court on any number of hot issues.

If BHO wins, he will likely have a dem-controlled Congress and Senate, so expect lots of activity during the first couple of years. With a little luck we can vote conservatives back into both houses in the mid-term elections in 2010.

Tom

[anygunanywhere]

Mrs. Anygun and I were putiing something in the gun safe the other day. She commented that she was concerned about the election, the future, and her concern that "they will be knocking on the door" wanting in the safe.

I paused for a moment, picked up the AR with a loaded magazine ready to rock and roll.

I told her that if they come they would not be knocking.

I told her that I did not expect it would get to the point where F-Troop would be breaking down the door. Maybe not in the next four years.

I hope I am wrong.

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

If elected, Obama may well try to act on his statement that he supports a nationwide ban on carrying concealed handguns. The legislation would be very simply crafted, much like the federal gun-free school zone statute and it would be based upon the same constitutional authority, i.e. the Commerce Clause. (This is the same authority on which LEOSA is based.) I believe the Supreme Court would uphold the law if challenged on the basis that it exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause, but I am not as sure that it would survive a challenge based upon a claim that it invades the police powers of the states. (This could be used to challenge the federal gun-free school law and LEOSA.)

If Obama gets to replace one of the conservative judges, or Heller swing-vote Kennedy, then all bets are off. The law would be upheld against any challenge and Heller would either be reversed or its holding would be narrowed to the point that it applies only to D.C. With Obama in the White House and Democrats expanding their majority margins in the House and Senate, we have the makings of a "perfect storm," political storm that is.

Chas.

[jdm]

The federal government also has the carrot and stick over the state governments by withholding federal funds. It is easy for the federal government to say "It is up to the state to determine if CHL's shall be permitted, however, we will stop sending money to any state that allows CHL".

There is a precedent for this. Back in the 1990's, at the urging of MADD, most states that had a legal alcohol purchase age of less than 21, raised the age to 21. Some states like Wisconsin resisted, and the federal government threatened to cut off federal highway funds until WI saw the light.

[stevie_d_64]

When Obama wins...(wheres that throw up emoticon when I need it?)

Two S.C. Justices will step down very quickly (February '09) to give plenty of time for BHO to nominate and counter the youthful balance of Roberts and Alito...

Ginsburg and Stevens both are pretty much long in the tooth and would like to step aside...

Picture Edwards and or Hillary being nominated...

(Now where did I put that emoticon???)

Wonder if my prediction will fire people up to get in there and vote???

[stroo]

Rather than banning guns outright, I would expect Obama to use Federal regulatory to treat ammunition and its components as hazardous materials. This would not have to go through Congress thereby not putting Democrats on the line to vote for it. This would also be harder to attack judicially given the broad powers the Feds have over hazardous materials. It would have the effect of making it difficult for stores to stock ammo or its components and therefore restrict supply. In other words, they don't directly take away the guns but by taking away the ammo effectively take away the guns.

[maximus2161]

well none of this sounds good at all. :( I hope and pray this will not happen. But I am one of those people who think of the worst case scenario.

I dont understand the logic he has of a nationwide ban on CHLs. When did CHL holders present a problem? I miss a report? We got rid of the Clinton ban, we got our CHL's....and now its all threatened to possibly be taken away?

[jimlongley]

I dont understand the logic he has of a nationwide ban on CHLs. When did CHL holders present a problem? I miss a report? We got rid of the Clinton ban, we got our CHL's....and now its all threatened to possibly be taken away?

CHL holders can be show to be less of a threat than the general population, but since when does truth and logic intrude upon the political process. All Bambam has to do is introduce enough fear mongering: "These people wander around, in public, all the time, armed."; "Imagine what would happen if they were in a crowded place and some bad guy stole their gun and used it to kill lots of people."; and other such scenarios that are popular with the Brady Bunch, and there will be a lound enough public outcry, from the noisy left, to get the legislation passed.

Don't think it can't happen, look at the AWB, which took a non-issue about non-threats, which were not historically used in crime, and turned it on its head.

[mr.72]

"We need to get these guns off the streets".

That is the rhetoric of disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

The American public has been convinced that the presence of guns causes "gun violence", and that by reducing the presence of guns, you reduce "gun violence". "Gun violence" is clearly a thing that needs to be reduced, so viola, take away guns from people, and you should accomplish this goal, right?

Now, I should point out one thing. The president, whoever he happens to be, does not make the law. We should be much more concerned about congress than a potential President Obama. When the majority-Democrat congress passes some more sweeping disarmament laws, then we need to be concerned about the Supreme Court composition. Added together I find all of these very unlikely. Disarmament of all citizens by Federal prohibition of concealed carry licenses is going to face extreme opposition particularly since it is a clear-cut states-rights issue. This will not get far enough to become a 2A fight.

[ErnieP]

Did I hear Republic of Texas? Texas has the economy to be self-sufficient...and prosperous. If the federal government goes too far, it would not be a shock to hear such a proposal. Does the Texas constitution allow secession??

[mr.72]

I think you mean "secession".

Perhaps read here: http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's questionable whether it is legal under the TX Constitution to secede. Of course you dive off into loondom fairly quickly once you begin to consider secession as a viable option for any state or group of states.

[KC5AV]

Don't forget that if Texas announced on Monday that they were going to secede, there would likely be a sizable military force sitting at the state line by Tuesday, asking us to kindly reconsider.

[DoubleJ]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeasy, ya'll. no talk about secession 'roun these parts.