The probably strategy using the DiFi bill

[SanJoseScott]

After reading the full text of the 2013 AWB many times over the past few days one thing bothered me a lot. I believe I even posted that it really didn't make sense that there was so much in this bill that it stood probably a zero percent chance of passing. Even after committee to reconcile differences and the feigned outrage by the MSM there is still little chance that it would pass.

Well it finally occured to me what the purpose of this bill might be. It is stated very clearly in the first few words at the top of the bill and later in the text:

"....to ensure that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and for other purposes."

Contrast to the second amemdment:

"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I think the real purpose of this bill is to set up the legal challenge to fundamentally change the 2nd amendment law(s). The DiFi bill makes a direct challenge to the 2nd amendment setting up a for certain legal challenge which will end up in the Supreme Court where they believe they will have tilted by then (think 5 years out). One or two more SCOTUS appointments and then that court would review this case and presto....the words "shall not be infringed" would become "shall not be infringed except for <insert list here>"

This is a long term battle with a sympathetic media and political machine unrivaled at the National level.

 

[pownal55]

Can't say for sure that is precisely their motive but I think you are on the right track. These people are not stupid, just unreasonable. If it takes forever to accomplish their goal then forever they will try.

 

[les strat]

As a high-profile politician, she should be drawn and quartered for treason against the US Constitution. There. I said it.

 

[animal]

One or two more SCOTUS appointments and then that court would review this case and presto....the words "shall not be infringed" would become "shall not be infringed except for <insert list here>"

I wouldn't get too hung up on the hyperbole in the preamble to the bill. That horse left the barn a long time ago. See the Court's opinion in the Heller case (written by Scalia, as gun-friendly a judge as you're ever going to find):

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.​