Justice Thomas Speaks After 10 Years

[nicky4968]

Justice Thomas asked questions from the bench for the first time in 10 years. If you go to some of the news sites you can find a better explanation of what went on than I can provide here.

It was, of course, about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ladder13]

Justice Thomas is a staunch 2A proponent, much like Justice Scalia.


Justice Clarence Thomas breaks 10-year streak, asks question in court - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Kevin J.]

Damn good question IMO. Perfect example of quality over quantity.

 

[FlyFish]

My understanding, which I've obtained from reading a number of articles, is that it was rather unusual for any justice to ask any questions during oral arguments prior to Scalia joining the court and starting the now-accepted give-and-take format.

 

[kozmic]

I guess if I were in a room with Nino Scalia I'd listen more than speak too. Thomas is a staunch 2A supporter.

I had to chuckle, the headlines of Thomas speaking remind me of all of those old jokes about going to a Grateful Dead concert and seeing Jerry Garcia move on stage. "Yeah dude, I saw Jerry move in Saratoga in '83 dude" (in my best stoner voice of course) BTW, it was a great concert

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Justice Thomas says losing rights permanently no small thing

Justice Thomas suggests that losing your rights permanently is no small thing.

Funny because in Mass if you get a DUI you lose your 2nd Amendment rights for life and if you have had even a single DUI conviction you can never apply to own a gun. It doesn't matter if you got a loss of license with no other penalty, in Mass the first DUI carrys a max sentence of 2 1/2 years which make you a PP for life! We are the only state that does that.

Clarence Thomas Suggests That Permanently Losing Your Gun Rights Is No Small Thing - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Retired Chief]

So move to another state. The vast majority of states reciprocity laws only recognize a felony conviction as a felony conviction if the act (in this case, drunk driving) if the same act would be a felony in the state offering reciprocity. I other words, a single drunk driving offense with no aggravating factors (killing someone while driving drunk, for instance) in Mass would not be honored as a felony conviction in Illinois.
Of course, it would be better to move out of Mass now, and even better never to drive drunk.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I don't worry about that, I had a 6 pack in the refridge once for 16 months. Last year I did have 3 beers, over the entire year!

I would go to Wyoming but the wife won't move, and the golden rule applies, she with the gold (in this case the pension and healthcare) makes the rules

However if Hillary gets in, the whole country will be like Mass and Calif, until they outright ban guns, so it won't matter where you are. I have started to make knives in my backyard blacksmith's shop but how long until they are banned like in England.

 

[Hapworth]

So move to another state...

Because uprooting an entire life encumbered by any number of constraining factors is always so simple...

 

[poordevil]

Don't drive drunk!

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Don't drive drunk!

They can be so nitpicky, I tell my kids no drinking when you may drive later!

It is amazing that if you go for an LTC now in 2016 and had a DUI in 1994 you are a PP in Mass

 

[tlay]

Good thing he's not getting paid by the word!

 

[BC38]

Anybody who says one DUI should result in losing your gun rights for life is being ridiculous. The two things have NO connection whatsoever.

How many of you have ever been in a fist fight? If you got into a fight and ended up charged for fighting in public, should you lose your gun rights for life for that too? If not, why not? Getting a DUI with no accident or anyone hurt is far less violent than a fist fight.

Its just another excuse to take away someone's gun rights and I can't believe anyone here would be supportive of that. If you're pro-2-A you should be incensed by it IMO.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Anybody who says one DUI should result in losing your gun rights for life is being ridiculous. The two things have NO connection whatsoever.

How many of you have ever been in a fist fight? If you got into a fight and ended up charged for fighting in public, should you lose your gun rights for life for that too? If not, why not? Getting a DUI with no accident or anyone hurt is far less violent than a fist fight.

Its just another excuse to take away someone's gun rights and I can't believe anyone here would be supportive of that. If you're pro-2-A you should be incensed by it IMO.

THAT is their thought behind the law, they want to eventually eliminate guns in Mass one stroke at a time. It is just like the law here, in order to buy a used gun in Mass you have to have proof it was previously owned and registered in Mass (when going through a dealer). If you don't have the proof you cannot buy it. That eliminates the other 49 states worth of guns