Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« The American Rifle: A Biography | Main | Something good to think about... »

Transition platform

Posted by David Hardy · 7 November 2008 07:59 AM

Snowflakes in Hell has the tale. Obama's transition platform is basically the (present) Brady agenda. I say "present," because if they get it they're obviously not going to proclaim victory, dissolve the organization, and look for other jobs.

11 Comments | Leave a comment

Rich | November 7, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply

I posted a question under article on incorporation of Heller that I think becomes important. How will the Obama win effect incorporation now??

BlackX | November 7, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply

Damn, that really didn't take long at all. What a snake-oil salesman. There went any slack I was going to give him once he won.

Steve W. | November 7, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply

"... Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

Note how he references where these weapons BELONG, not how the ban will affect society. So he bases his desire for a ban on a belief system, not on crime statistics.

Tom | November 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply

so if they don't belong on our streets is he going to get rid of his SS?

You're welcome to go to http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/ and submit your ideas, in fact, I strongly recommend it. Maybe if enough people do it they'll start to get the damn idea.

Carl in Chicago | November 7, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply

Rich:

In my opinion, Obama's win would affect an incorporation case very little ... long as Kennedy is amenable to it. If Obama nominates justices, they would likely be as replacements for Stevens, Ginsburg, or Breyer. The five who gave us Heller would not be affected ... certainly not in the first term, at least.

Marcus Poulin | November 8, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply

Obama's change.gov bullshit website is the same
as his For President website EXACTLY.

It isn't anything newly differentiated
for the transition.


http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/


Though it might sound like an aggressive first 100-days policies list.

It is in fact the same list of issues that was on barackobama.com.

Everyone is worried that that is his transition points.

But just more idiotic crap from his For President website.

Don't get all worried people.

What he wants isn't exactly what he gets.

Even though he thinks he is King
and the idiot World considers him
to be.

If he wants to deal with a Republican
Congress for 6 years lol then he will try
to pass his stupid ban :)

Tim Weaver | November 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply

Funny, I know of few legal assault weapons actually "on the streets" in our country, and those that are, are regulated by the feds.

However, if we had assault weapons available on our streets, we can be assured that our country will never become that foreign battlefield.

zippypinhead | November 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply

Too bad Obama doesn't know what he's talking about on this issue. If he said "assault RIFLES [i.e., select-fire intermediate power infantry weapons] . . . belong on foreign battlefields and not on our street," I might be able to accept it as simply a reaffirmation of support for the NFA post-Heller. But we all know his definition of "assault weapon" is Rep. McCarthy's definition (e.g., any semi-auto rifle that's naughty-looking and/or might have had military or law enforcement origins, even if that was 70+ years ago). Sad, very sad.

Especially sad given that USDOJ/BJS statistics indicate that rifles of ANY type are used in less than 3% of criminal acts (a broader category than street crimes, including intra-family homicides, excessive force defensive shootings, and given the way those stats are compiled, probably even certain egregious hunting violations in some jurisdictions). And the guns McCarthy and friends define as "assault weapons" are, needless to say, a subset of even that de minimus statistic.

Let's hope the Heller gloss on "common use" weapons is enough to eventually invalidate a new AWB, given that semi-automatic rifles now account for roughly 1/3 of all rifles sold to civilians. Or if that isn't enough to make it over the hurdle, maybe the AWB goes away given the trivial percentage of crimes committed by "assault weapons" coupled with no statistically-correlated rise in crime after the 2004 expiration of the last AWB -- especially under a heightened standard of review (assuming the courts ever get around to defining what the actual standard is).

Chris Knox | November 8, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply

Interestingly, the link under the change.gov site is now a 404.

Although the Democrats would certainly love to renew and strengthen the ban, I'm not convinced they're ready to bet their newly won majority on it. That's the reason I'm interested in making sure that memories of the fight over and the fallout from the 1994 ban remain fresh. The Angry White Male demographic needs to be be shaken awake.

avgJoe | November 9, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply

As far as Oboma goes and what is going on is pretty simple. Oboma is the closer and goes to his sales managers for his marching orders.

wolfman | November 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply

you can still find the agenda info here, at least until they take it down. http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/

According to this they want to make all guns childproof. The problem I see here is that they will do something that makes the guns useless, but still have a lot of people rationalize it by saying how it is reasonable and for the kids.

Not good, as they seem to be playing smart here.

Leave a comment