Very bad news from the Supremes today

Register to hide this ad
Seems to be a swing in the courts lately to let individual states establish gun laws, as long as they meet the minimum definition (Boy, ain't that subjective) of the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for states rights, but the wording, to me, is pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment.....

Larry
 
There is nothing actually "clear" about the Second Amendment or we wouldn't have any disputes. It took forever for the SCOTUS to actually apply the Second Amendment to the States so there will always be room for interpretation.

It is not just the minimum definition of the Second Amendment. The Justices who crafted the Heller and McDonald opinions, particularly the late, great Antonin Scalia, left room for "reasonable restrictions". THAT is where the rubber meets the road. WHAT is a reasonable restriction? That is an undefined term presently,

Therefore, if a city, in a state that allows cities to pass their own gun laws, decides that it is reasonable to require its citizens to have a good reason to carry a concealed handgun, and not just "because", then the SCOTUS will dodge the issue every time and permit the city ordinance to stand. It's really not surprising at all.

Federal pre-emption is the only cure to this problem.
 
Fishinfool said:
Seems to be a swing in the courts lately to let individual states establish gun laws, as long as they meet the minimum definition (Boy, ain't that subjective) of the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for states rights, but the wording, to me, is pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment.....

Larry
Click to expand...

Clear as anything can be.

Thomas speaks out:


Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court On | The Daily Caller

Gorsuch called the 9th circuit decision " indefensible".

Unfortunately due to the reluctance of the SC to affirm what has already been written in the 2A........
I'd say states like NY, MA, CT, MD, NJ, CA are on their own now. But watch out for Bloomberg and his merry band of gun grabbers coming to a state near you.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well, a mandate.....

Well, a mandate from the Supreme Court is just what we need to keep criminals, gang bangers and terrorists from carrying guns in public, yessiree Bob. Even if crazy people can get hold of a gun, they won't be able to carry it out in public and shoot anybody. They'll have to kill others in their own homes. Is this a great country or what?
 
SCJ Thomas nailed it - But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it," Thomas said.



The 2A is clear to me.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What part of requiring someone to obtain a license to bear arms then denying issuance of the license on the basis that the government doesn't rate the need to bear arms worthy enough to issue a license isn't an infringement? Please...

The 2A would need to be re-written - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed by the whim of government
 
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil said:
SCJ Thomas nailed it - But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it," Thomas said.



The 2A is clear to me.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What part of requiring someone to obtain a license to bear arms then denying issuance of the license on the basis that the government doesn't rate the need to bear arms worthy enough to issue a license isn't an infringement? Please...

The 2A would need to be re-written - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed by the whim of government
Click to expand...

Right is not a right
People does not mean people
Keep does not mean have
Bear does not mean carry
Arms does not mean guns
Shall not be infringed means may be prohibitied

What not to understand?
 
Last edited:
I'm too lazy and pressed for time this morning to look up the reasoning, if any, the Supreme Court gave for not hearing the Peruta case so if someone has the answer or a link please post or I'll look it up later. The article linked does seem to give an idea why the dissenters (Thomas and Gorsuch) dissented.
 
Well I posit the reason that Roberts and Alito did not provide the 2 votes needed to call the case up for hearing is really simple. Remember that at the time this was decided there was speculation that Kennedy was going to retire. If true and the case was called up to the docket the Court would in all likelihood be faced with a 4-4 split which would have affirmed the California decision. The reasoning being that a confirmation of a new Justice would have been an absolute bloodbath. Remember that Kennedy was nominated only after Robert Bork removed himself from the fray. Gorsuch was a zero sum proposition regarding ideologies when he replaced Scalia. You can bet your backsides that the Trump nominee who eventually replaces Kennedy will be the REAL game changer on SCOTUS. I suggest that the long game is in play here for the reasons above set forth.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, I can only give one like for this post. It's very well written. I think that there will be more cases along these lines, and that once there is retirement/replacement cycle, a case will come along that is "ripe".

Secondarily, Kennedy is sort of wishy washy on 2A cases, and even if he didn't retire and the case was heard, we would have run the risk of a bad 5-4 decision.

It would have been nice if this was settled in Heller, but since that was not at issue, it might have been a hard sell to get to 5 votes if carry outside the home was included in the decision.



CAJUNLAWYER said:
Well I posit the reason that Roberts and Alito did not provide the 2 votes needed to call the case up for hearing is really simple. Remember that at the time this was decided there was speculation that Kennedy was going to retire. If true and the case was called up to the docket the COurt would in all likelihood be faced with a 4-4 split which would have affirmed the California decision. The reasoning being that a confirmation of a new Justice would have been an absolute bloodbath. Remember that Kennedy was nominated only after Robert Bork removed himself from the fray. Gorsuch was a zero sum proposition regarding ideologies when he replaced Scalia. You can bet your backsides that the Trump nominie who eventually replaces Kennedy will be the REAL game changer on SCOTUS. I suggest that the long game is in play here for the reasons above set forth.
Click to expand...
 
Ginsburg is ready to go and Souter is 79, there could possibly be 3 picks in the next couple years.
Gonna be hell on Capital Hill.Need to hold the majority.

Gorsuch looks to be a keeper.
 
Last edited:
IMO Kennedy would have voted with the liberals using Heller. The Heller ruling made it clear that there was a court history for states regulation of concealed carry.

We dodged a bullet IMO.
 
bushmaster1313 said:
Right is not a right
People does not mean people
Keep does not mean have
Bear does not mean carry
Arms does not mean guns
Shall not be infringed means may be prohibitied

What not to understand?
Click to expand...

What does a "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mean?
 
Fishinfool said:
Seems to be a swing in the courts lately to let individual states establish gun laws, as long as they meet the minimum definition (Boy, ain't that subjective) of the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for states rights, but the wording, to me, is pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment.....

Larry
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights was written to limit federal actions with the 2A deliberately making gun control a states rights thing. The intention was to make the states as powerful as the Feds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bushmaster1313
Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii Private Property Carry Restriction at the Supreme Court
Replies
0
Views
136
bushmaster1313
bushmaster1313
L
Supremes nix Mexican gun lawsuit.
Replies
12
Views
672
Law-dog
L
dben002
AR-15 ban approved by SCOTUS
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Rocketmedic40
R
R
Wash State mag ban case, Gator's Guns update
Replies
6
Views
468
Racer X
R
Onomea
Bad News in Oregon: Measure 114 Upheld
Replies
8
Views
1K
LVSteve
LVSteve

Latest posts

Back
Top