So I commented two days ago (February 6, 2012) in regards to the commentary by Jonn Lilyea on this AP story. My comments are a analysis of why any regulation resembling the old "Assaults Weapons Ban" will not come to fruition.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?paged=5AP:Beware Vetrans with Guns.

            The want by veterans to continue owning guns, practicing with them, having these guns accessible for purchase and customizable is why the newest “Assault Weapons Ban” will not come to fruition. The unintended consequence of the volunteer army and war is hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of young men and women who would never have carried, fired, and protected the lives of themselves and people they have come to respect and love with those guns would not have happened. Now when they return home to the United States they know these weapons, they know how to handle these weapons, they know how these weapons make a difference in a fire fight and they want the security these weapons provide in their homes like they had in foreign lands. I also think as U.S. Citizens they find resentment in the idea the same politicians who voted and sent them to these wars are now saying … by the way not in this country.

This represents a vast shift in demographics of uninvolved non-gun owners to very involved gun users since the last “Assault Weapons Ban” (That and Dianne is 20? years older and has done nothing of significance before or since and she is becoming nervous about her legacy.) I surmise Dianne and the rest of the politicians of her thinking have underestimated this shift and underestimated the authority, knowledge and integrity these veterans are bringing to bear socially, politically and morally against gun ownership restrictions. In fact, much like prohibition as the old guard died off and the newer adults became active, whom were not scared of and responsible with “adult beverages” things became more reasonable and relaxed i.e. hard liquor being advertised on public airwaves and in magazines, the building of thousands of microbreweries, the willingness to allow alcohol purchases in grocery stores, at any hour and on Sundays and the expansion of choice in all “adult beverage” selections. So to, when the 60′s Peace Nick, all violence is bad, all guns are scary and evil crowd dies off and the wisdom of the current crop of veterans takes their place, the shift away from more gun control to less will continue as we have seen in the last twenty years.

     On more reflection I also have come to the realization - in conjunction with a large demographic of the population having moved from uninvolved non-gun owners to very involved gun users the lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the White House are having to consider two new major impediments not there the last time the "Assault Weapons Ban" was implemented. Their names are District of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago which upended the strictest gun possession laws in the nation (Residents and non-residents could not possess guns even if they were driving through Washington DC or Chicago.) on the understanding the Second Amendment actually says what it says: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This standard (An originalist reading.) set by the court throws out any law which outright prohibits the owning of guns and transporting guns. Though the Supreme Court said "people" can own guns in both of these places and anywhere else "people" can be found in the United States they did not define how burdensome government requirements could be on the way to gun ownership and carrying said weapon. They also said nothing about ongoing burdensome requirements imposed on keeping and the continued.

The unintended consequence of government overreach like which is occurring in New York (Passed), Colorado (Passed), Oregon, Washington and California will be the many law suits challenging the constitutionality of theses more burdensome laws, the far differing rulings which will come out of the district courts and the prevailing wind of the Supreme Court in the direction of originalism; What could be contrary as the words most important to the upcoming cases will be: "...shall not be infringed." Not too many ways to "interpret" those four words. It is difficult to imagine an argument favorable to government entities necessitating infringing (Legislated laws creating a burden - financial, time, choice, privacy - requiring background checks with databases of "peoples" names, social security numbers, passport numbers, arrest records, conviction records and the level of record/conviction necessary to void this fundamental right; the fundamental right to not have to submit to an investigation of my character without just cause, requiring a drivers license from only that state to purchase a legally marketed commodity, interstate transportation of firearms i.e. if you buy a gun in one state then change residence to another, the state you move to cannot confiscate your firearm because they prohibit the sale of such weapons - states cannot regulate interstate commerce only the congress can (Which brings to mind if you buy in one state, move to another state and the second state requires registration, do you have to register since you bought the gun in a state which did not require registration?). Forfeiting copies of fingerprints to purchase a gun or ammunition - presumed innocence, having to buy a permit to own - registration of the firearm.) on "people" from gun ownership when the "people" and their guns are not causing an undue burden on the government. How will such a burden be established at the Supreme Court level? Not by hearsay, anecdotes and  emotion, but by statistics and facts gathered by none other than government bureaucracies. Which on all levels are reporting the overwhelming number of deaths from guns are happening from suicide and handguns used by known criminals. To accept the known statistics: (From Wikapedia) "In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States." Of the 11,078 of "firearm-related homicides" XXX of the "firearm-related homicides" were homicides from guns purchased and owned and used by "people" deemed appropriate by the same bureaucracies; . The statistical analysis is - there is no statistical analysis - the XXX deaths by guns legally owned by the perpetrator in a nation with 300 million people where the estimates are 310 million guns are present will be difficult to argue as rising to the need for infringement by the government. With the rise of original-ism in the Supreme Court it is not unreasonable  to see many of the current and proposed laws too gun ownership as being overly burdensome for "people" and the free exercise of this "fundamental right." One has to wonder how reticent the justices will be to actually endorse or define what might be acceptable infringement when clearly everyone can read the same four words "... shall not be infringed." Much like affirmative action and reverse discrimination - which is slowly being exorcised out of the law.

So to wrap up I want to explain the reason to my madness in using "people." I specifically noted this word from the original text, because I have learned and agree "words matter" and people use words for clear reasons. So why the use of "people?" Not citizen, not law abiding citizen, not landowners, not voters, not some people but "the people." Well today "people" has been supplanted by "law abiding citizens." Who are these law abiding citizens? Most people would say, " Those not convicted of a felony should be allowed to possess guns!" Really? The convicted felon like Bernie Madoff or Charles Manson? Or how about Martha Stewart, or Mark David Chapman? This category "Felon" covers a lot of crimes and is growing every day through federal statutes which Federal Employees - not elected officials - write and categorize as felony convictions if violated. Most of these crimes are not gun related. So why is the ability to exercise the Second Amendment not allowed? So when I read someone say, "Clearly, background checks are acceptable" i.e. not an infringement, it actually means the opposite of what the speakers is saying. It is not clear at all why background investigations should be required. So why "people?" The best explanation for "people" is the founders and writers of the Constitution believed this was such a fundamental right it transcended even American Citizenship. People - they do not say free, slave, Indian, non-Indian, citizen or non-citizen . And they did not use "law abiding" because they assumed those who committed crimes which would preclude gun ownership and carrying of arms would be executed. If all such criminals were not present in society then there was no reason to examine and verify the character of the individual or restrict the weapon being purchased. If there is an undue burden on the government it is not being caused by "the people." The undue burden is being caused by the Judicial Branch and an unwillingness to incarcerate and keep incarcerated or execute those convicted of gun crimes.