Truthfully there is serious merit to the case, because the argument isn’t really about guns it’s about the governments ability to declare criminal law via OIC and the seizure of property.
Theoretically if the government wins, it sets a highly dangerous precedent in that any government, minority or majority can rule via OIC and criminalize and seize property. So in effect a government could say “your gas cars are now a threat to the environment, via oic they are banned and only 5% of you will get compensation”
They could OIC new speech laws and hate speech and then straight criminalize their opponents. So this isn’t a shoe in for the government.
On the flip side, the LPC might want to drop the battle, because the Supreme Court could neuter the power of OIC’s and I don’t think they want that either
This is the talking point that we need be advertising and talking to friends and neighbours about. We lose people’s interest and sympathy when we make it about guns and our personal hobbies, but if we can show them how it widens to governments power to affect them, their hobbies and property we might get some support. Good example of the car and environment angle, very real and relatable.
I have always going from the angle of proper fund allocation. Such that the money for gun confiscation should have gone to border security, and community crime prevention instead of buying firearm from legal firearm owners who didn't pose a threat to the public safety.
That's how i phrase it to people i know that are negative to ambivalent about guns. I even phrase it as "you hate guns? good you should be even more mad. Its doing literally nothing to stop actual gun violence or prevent illegal guns getting into the hands of criminals". Ive had great success re-framing the argument this way. I have a little but still some secondary success on mollifying people on their opinions of private gun ownership by separate the basic concept that a person willing to jump through a million hoops isn't the same meth head gunning up a 7-11.
332
u/rastamasta45 Jul 13 '26
Truthfully there is serious merit to the case, because the argument isn’t really about guns it’s about the governments ability to declare criminal law via OIC and the seizure of property.
Theoretically if the government wins, it sets a highly dangerous precedent in that any government, minority or majority can rule via OIC and criminalize and seize property. So in effect a government could say “your gas cars are now a threat to the environment, via oic they are banned and only 5% of you will get compensation”
They could OIC new speech laws and hate speech and then straight criminalize their opponents. So this isn’t a shoe in for the government.
On the flip side, the LPC might want to drop the battle, because the Supreme Court could neuter the power of OIC’s and I don’t think they want that either