|
|
03-21-2017, 07:45 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,769
Likes: 57,859
Liked 52,997 Times in 16,526 Posts
|
|
Gorsuch backs Heller
A good first step. We have a ways to go.
WASHINGTON ― Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, said Tuesday that the court’s 2008 decision declaring a fundamental right to possess guns for self-defense in the home is settled law.
“[District of Columbia v.] Heller is the law of the land,” Gorsuch told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on the second day of his confirmation hearing.
“Whatever is in Heller is the law, and I follow the law,” he said earlier during that same exchange
Neil Gorsuch Backs Supreme Court's Key Gun Rights Ruling As 'The Law Of The Land' | The Huffington Post
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 03-21-2017 at 07:48 PM.
|
The Following 15 Users Like Post:
|
7shooter, adwjc, ChattanoogaPhil, Frank46, GRUMPY247, KLYDE, les.b, LoboGunLeather, Ozark Marine, PatAz, RobertJ., Rustyt1953, the ringo kid, vonn, woudstra |
03-21-2017, 08:26 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,520
Likes: 19,278
Liked 32,369 Times in 5,476 Posts
|
|
Thus assuring himself of a thorough proctology examination.
|
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
|
|
03-21-2017, 09:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Stick Marsh, Fla.
Posts: 9,512
Likes: 4,972
Liked 21,200 Times in 6,407 Posts
|
|
In my opinion Good for him! In her opinion he's screwed!
__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
03-21-2017, 09:40 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southwest Iowa
Posts: 10,867
Likes: 2,688
Liked 18,970 Times in 5,589 Posts
|
|
You start approving judges that follow the law and there is no telling what can happen in this country.
It might catch on.
__________________
Mike
S&WCA #3065
|
The Following 15 Users Like Post:
|
7shooter, adwjc, Collects, crsides, franzas, HCH, hoc9sw, ladder13, Ozark Marine, PatAz, SMSgt, tarsam, the ringo kid, vonn, woudstra |
03-22-2017, 10:26 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: houston,texas
Posts: 7,198
Likes: 124,841
Liked 23,177 Times in 5,749 Posts
|
|
Judges that follow the law instead of trying to make their own are my preference for sure.
__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere
|
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
|
|
03-22-2017, 11:50 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: CNY
Posts: 489
Likes: 62
Liked 520 Times in 210 Posts
|
|
I've got my fingers crossed on this guy. I would like to see someone who respects the law over personal agenda.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-01-2017, 08:44 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
|
|
It seems like every gun forum, firearms-related website and blog, and every pro-gun group in the country (including the NRA) has fallen all over themselves over Gorsuch and because of the headline that reads "Neil Gorsuch Backs Supreme Court's Key Gun Rights Ruling As 'The Law Of The Land'."
Far as I'm concerned, Gorsuch is an unknown factor when it comes to 2A rights and issues. The cold hard fact is that Neil Gorsuch has not said one single word that indicates he "backs" the Supreme Court's ruling on Heller. He said that it's established law, it's the law of the land, and he'll follow the law. That gives no indication whatsoever about what he thinks of the decision, or how he would have ruled had he been on the Supreme Court. He totally and artfully dodged the question when asked if he agreed with the Court's ruling on Heller.
Gorsuch has made no judicial ruling on Heller. He has expressed no judicial or personal opinion on the merits of the Heller case. And that's because he knows that the less he says about 2A rights, or any other hot button topic, the better it'll be for him until he gets confirmed. He just about has to cloak his answers to the committee in ambiguity. And he's had no impact on any prior or pending 2A legislation. Federal judges do not legislate, period.
All the pro-gun people are looking at Gorsuch through some sort of rose colored Second Amendment lens. They believe that because of his ideological leanings, he will rule in favor of pro-gun issues each and every time...when in fact, his prior decisions on 2A cases are few and far between. Pro-gun people are looking at Gorsuch as he relates to only one issue. It's a one-issue thing for them.
Neil Gorsuch has stated that "Second Amendment rights should not be infringed upon lightly." (The italics are mine). By adding that qualifier, he leaves the door wide open for certain levels of infringement.
Gorsuch wants to be confirmed. He probably will be. But until he is, and until he sits on that bench and rules on a 2A-related case, gun owners have no idea of his true feelings on the Second Amendment or any other gun-related issue. And his possible confirmation will do absolutely nothing to change existing gun laws until they might come before the Court.
As I said in another post somewhere in this 2A Forum, if y'all think Gorsuch is going to be some sort of Second Amendment savior, or will wave his magic Supreme Court wand over every 2A issue and law, you're in for a disappointment.
All this is my opinion, but it's mostly fact-based. Some of you might not like it. That's fine.
Have a good day.
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-01-2017, 09:07 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 141
Likes: 201
Liked 85 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog
It seems like every gun forum, firearms-related website and blog, and every pro-gun group in the country (including the NRA) has fallen all over themselves over Gorsuch and because of the headline that reads "Neil Gorsuch Backs Supreme Court's Key Gun Rights Ruling As 'The Law Of The Land'."
Far as I'm concerned, Gorsuch is an unknown factor when it comes to 2A rights and issues. The cold hard fact is that Neil Gorsuch has not said one single word that indicates he "backs" the Supreme Court's ruling on Heller. He said that it's established law, it's the law of the land, and he'll follow the law. That gives no indication whatsoever about what he thinks of the decision, or how he would have ruled had he been on the Supreme Court. He totally and artfully dodged the question when asked if he agreed with the Court's ruling on Heller.
Gorsuch has made no judicial ruling on Heller. He has expressed no judicial or personal opinion on the merits of the Heller case. And that's because he knows that the less he says about 2A rights, or any other hot button topic, the better it'll be for him until he gets confirmed. He just about has to cloak his answers to the committee in ambiguity. And he's had no impact on any prior or pending 2A legislation. Federal judges do not legislate, period.
All the pro-gun people are looking at Gorsuch through some sort of rose colored Second Amendment lens. They believe that because of his ideological leanings, he will rule in favor of pro-gun issues each and every time...when in fact, his prior decisions on 2A cases are few and far between. Pro-gun people are looking at Gorsuch as he relates to only one issue. It's a one-issue thing for them.
Neil Gorsuch has stated that "Second Amendment rights should not be infringed upon lightly." (The italics are mine). By adding that qualifier, he leaves the door wide open for certain levels of infringement.
Gorsuch wants to be confirmed. He probably will be. But until he is, and until he sits on that bench and rules on a 2A-related case, gun owners have no idea of his true feelings on the Second Amendment or any other gun-related issue. And his possible confirmation will do absolutely nothing to change existing gun laws until they might come before the Court.
As I said in another post somewhere in this 2A Forum, if y'all think Gorsuch is going to be some sort of Second Amendment savior, or will wave his magic Supreme Court wand over every 2A issue and law, you're in for a disappointment.
All this is my opinion, but it's mostly fact-based. Some of you might not like it. That's fine.
Have a good day.
|
That's all true but he does rule by the law. That alone makes him a reliable quantity.
We could have ended up with Merrick Garland...or WORSE had the election gone the other way! That was one political dice roll which paid off....
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-01-2017, 11:13 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,769
Likes: 57,859
Liked 52,997 Times in 16,526 Posts
|
|
I'm an optomist and a hopeful, non negative person but hey that's only me.
__________________
Sure you did
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-02-2017, 09:00 AM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13
I'm an optomist and a hopeful, non negative person but hey that's only me.
|
I'm an optimist as well. I'm also a realist. It isn't "negative" to look at both sides of an issue. I look at facts, not wishes and hopes. If wishes were horses, we'd all be ridin'.
I think gun owners are overestimating Gorsuch's importance regarding future 2A issues. His nomination and possible confirmation to the Supreme Court is not all about the Second Amendment, in spite of what we pro-gun people might like to believe.
The fact is...Gorsuch will have little or no impact on current 2A issues and laws, unless a specific case comes before the Supreme Court. He may sit on the bench for the next thirty years, but no one can predict how many 2A-related cases will come before the court and no one can know how Gorsuch would rule. He couldn't even tell you, himself, how he'd rule. He will be a Justice of the Supreme Court, not a member of Congress. He will have no say-so at all regarding any present or future laws relating to the Second Amendment, unless they come before the Court. And even then, he might not hold the majority opinion. He might not be able to swing the other justices over to the pro-2A side of an argument. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
Gorsuch could be the judicial identical twin of Scalia for all we know, but that won't help pro-gun people one bit unless he rules or writes a dissenting opinion on some obscure 2A issue.
That's it from me on Gorsuch. This forum's supposed to be about real 2A issues, not what a potential Supreme Court Justice may or may not think about the Second Amendment.
Y'all enjoy the rest of the weekend.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-02-2017, 09:12 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,769
Likes: 57,859
Liked 52,997 Times in 16,526 Posts
|
|
What a judge "thinks" about an issue should not matter, in my ideal wannabe real world, they take an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution, nothing more.
Fact is, Gorsuch told Feinstein Heller is the law of the land, that's pretty clear in the video.
I want judges ruling by the law, not their personal bias, we have politicians for that.
Heller is about the 2A, this is the 2A forum, if not the mods would have pulled this like they've done with other non 2A related posts here.
“[District of Columbia v.] Heller is the law of the land,” Gorsuch told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on the second day of his confirmation hearing.
“Whatever is in Heller is the law, and I follow the law,” he said earlier during that same exchange
I rest my case.
__________________
Sure you did
Last edited by ladder13; 04-02-2017 at 12:38 PM.
|
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-02-2017, 09:18 AM
|
Junior Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 7,707
Likes: 13,905
Liked 9,470 Times in 4,391 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13
I'm an optimist and a hopeful, non-negative person but hey that's only me.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog
I'm an optimist as well. I'm also a realist. It isn't "negative" to look at both sides of an issue.
|
I appreciate that fact that we have been zinged before by supposedly solid judges who turned moonbat after a short time on the court. It seems to happen to our side a whole lot more than to the opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog
That's it from me on Gorsuch. This forum's supposed to be about real 2A issues, not what a potential Supreme Court Justice may or may not think about the Second Amendment.
|
Real 2A issues? Like what? In today's crazy world, which person(s) make it onto the Supreme Court is the only thing that matters in regard to the sanctity and preservation of the 2nd Amendment.
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-06-2017, 03:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,769
Likes: 57,859
Liked 52,997 Times in 16,526 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTSH
...................In today's crazy world, which person(s) make it onto the Supreme Court is the only thing that matters in regard to the sanctity and preservation of the 2nd Amendment.
|
Good news today
__________________
Sure you did
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-07-2017, 12:06 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,363
Likes: 9,379
Liked 17,293 Times in 6,647 Posts
|
|
He's now Justice Gorsuch. Or will be when he's sworn in. Which will be before Monday.
A slight correction. Chief Justice Roberts will administer the official oath of office at 9:00AM Monday. Justice Kennedy will administer a ceremonial oath of office later in the day. Justice Gorsuch was a law clerk for Justice Kennedy, so they have a bond.
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
Last edited by GaryS; 04-07-2017 at 07:51 PM.
Reason: Slight correction
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-13-2017, 03:41 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,363
Likes: 9,379
Liked 17,293 Times in 6,647 Posts
|
|
It appears that the Court will now consider a petition for certiorari in the 9th circuit case of Peruta. That's been on hold for a couple of years now, but might be moving forward to a hearing before SCOTUS.
That's an important case for gun owners, since it will answer the question as to whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm outside the home.
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
04-14-2017, 05:33 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 20,895
Likes: 85,108
Liked 22,838 Times in 10,553 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryS
It appears that the Court will now consider a petition for certiorari in the 9th circuit case of Peruta. That's been on hold for a couple of years now, but might be moving forward to a hearing before SCOTUS.
That's an important case for gun owners, since it will answer the question as to whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm outside the home.
|
I thought that was already answered by Justice Scalia-a few years ago? I remember he wrote something about that--just not sure when?
|
04-14-2017, 06:55 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,363
Likes: 9,379
Liked 17,293 Times in 6,647 Posts
|
|
Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, but that was about the right to keep a functioning, loaded, firearm in your home. Which up until then was illegal in DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the ringo kid
I thought that was already answered by Justice Scalia-a few years ago? I remember he wrote something about that--just not sure when?
|
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-16-2017, 11:09 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,769
Likes: 57,859
Liked 52,997 Times in 16,526 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by the ringo kid
I thought that was already answered by Justice Scalia-a few years ago? I remember he wrote something about that--just not sure when?
|
That question was answered on Dec 15, 1791.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-18-2017, 01:13 PM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,986
Likes: 8,972
Liked 48,738 Times in 9,247 Posts
|
|
Gorsuch is confirmed, and I believe we were blessed.
Since it is settled, we're done here.
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett
|
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|