User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:10:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even Heller really didnt change much outside of DC and even there guns might as well still be illegal. McDonald extended it to the states. The point is that those two decisions teed us up for cases that really have an effect on gun laws. What matters now is how the court rules in the next few gun cases. We need to win cases on things like AWBs and mags and carry. I think it is a mistake to try to jump too far ahead and risk a loss. If we lose a case at the supremes, overcoming that will be almost impossible. So there is clear risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:13:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you think gun control laws would be eliminated by a moderate NY Republican who had indicated support for AWBs in times past? Even a solid pro-gun POTUS would have trouble on that front, it isn't easy getting good stuff passed in Congress. The Trump effect on this will be in the courts. It would be good if he replaced a lefty justice to give us 6-3 for a good ruling on AWBs and mag bans. I had to wait 45 years for the court to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. This doesn't happen fast, and it requires the right set of judges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yep,that's why I'm pretty much 100% pessimistic. I did slide to the optimistic side for a short bit when Trump got elected,but that was very short lived. Even a solid pro-gun POTUS would have trouble on that front, it isn't easy getting good stuff passed in Congress. The Trump effect on this will be in the courts. It would be good if he replaced a lefty justice to give us 6-3 for a good ruling on AWBs and mag bans. I had to wait 45 years for the court to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. This doesn't happen fast, and it requires the right set of judges. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:14:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heller established it as an individual right. That in itself is huge. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Even Heller really didnt change much outside of DC and even there guns might as well still be illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:15:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ironically, you misunderstand how qualified immunity works. It has nothing to do with indemnity, which is a creature of state law wherever federal court is sitting. If an officer gets qualified immunity, the case is dismissed, period. There will be no damages to be indemnified. It goes away completely. If an officer does not get QI, which is the plan, he is still indemnified 99% of the time, by his employer. The problem with QI is that the court finds that yes, the officer did violate the plaintiff's federally protected right, but since it was kind of confusing, or since there was no precedent sufficiently close to the fact pattern, we're gonna give him a break and dismiss the claim entirely. Where indemnity comes in, is if say the police officer carjacks the citizen. The citizen sues under 1983 b/c he was acting under color of law. But the employer fires the cop, he's indicted, and heading to jail probably. Then the insurance carrier for the employer sends the cop a letter informing him they have no duty to provide a legal defense, nor indemnify him, b/c his conduct falls under the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance police. BTDT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. Where indemnity comes in, is if say the police officer carjacks the citizen. The citizen sues under 1983 b/c he was acting under color of law. But the employer fires the cop, he's indicted, and heading to jail probably. Then the insurance carrier for the employer sends the cop a letter informing him they have no duty to provide a legal defense, nor indemnify him, b/c his conduct falls under the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance police. BTDT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:16:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An individual right without a level of scrutiny applied. The liberal justices literally chided the 5 as cowards for not establishing a level of scrutiny in their dissent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:17:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The issue is the ‘conservative’ judges have historically been anti BOR when it comes to the 4th amendment especially. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:26:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I off base here? Didn’t Heller have “...common use for lawful purposes...” in it? Doesn’t that make “assault weapons bans” unconstitutional? It’s not a crazy reach to come to that conclusion is it? Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:26:58 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I should have not used the word indemnify. Your answer is like Microsoft help, technically correct, but absolutely useless. Trust me, if SCOTUS rules that the 2A is intermediate scrutiny or better, a whole lot of smart cops will suddenly become 2A converts. A few examples, pour encourager les autres will have wonderful effects on the LE community. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. Where indemnity comes in, is if say the police officer carjacks the citizen. The citizen sues under 1983 b/c he was acting under color of law. But the employer fires the cop, he's indicted, and heading to jail probably. Then the insurance carrier for the employer sends the cop a letter informing him they have no duty to provide a legal defense, nor indemnify him, b/c his conduct falls under the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance police. BTDT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:27:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Remember when he declined to go after Comey after the IG referred him? Good times! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:37:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It settled the fact it is an individual right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Heller settled nothing, it gave no usable level of scrutiny to use. Furthermore, Scalia gave the left 3 sentences worth of support for gun control which they have clung to, while giving us a lengthy opinion that amounts to pretty much the most confusing jurisprudence in existence to date Seen many pro-2A rulings out of the circuit courts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:41:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are NO good Democrat appointed judges. Not a single one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The issue is the ‘conservative’ judges have historically been anti BOR when it comes to the 4th amendment especially. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:42:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The issue is the ‘conservative’ judges have historically been anti BOR when it comes to the 4th amendment especially. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep,that's why I'm pretty much 100% pessimistic. I did slide to the optimistic side for a short bit when Trump got elected,but that was very short lived. Even a solid pro-gun POTUS would have trouble on that front, it isn't easy getting good stuff passed in Congress. The Trump effect on this will be in the courts. It would be good if he replaced a lefty justice to give us 6-3 for a good ruling on AWBs and mag bans. I had to wait 45 years for the court to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. This doesn't happen fast, and it requires the right set of judges. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free Meanwhile me sitting there looking at them like: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:45:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup, observed this with my "conservative" classmates in crim pro who suddenly could care less about the constitution because they "didn't care about the rights of criminals" Meanwhile me sitting there looking at them like: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep,that's why I'm pretty much 100% pessimistic. I did slide to the optimistic side for a short bit when Trump got elected,but that was very short lived. Even a solid pro-gun POTUS would have trouble on that front, it isn't easy getting good stuff passed in Congress. The Trump effect on this will be in the courts. It would be good if he replaced a lefty justice to give us 6-3 for a good ruling on AWBs and mag bans. I had to wait 45 years for the court to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. This doesn't happen fast, and it requires the right set of judges. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free Meanwhile me sitting there looking at them like:
It’s crazy we are forced to choose between which constitutional rights will be infringed upon. There isn’t a ‘none’ option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:54:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: sure, you're right. How useful has that been in the past 10 years? Seen many pro-2A rulings out of the circuit courts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 3:57:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are NO good Democrat appointed judges. Not a single one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The issue is the ‘conservative’ judges have historically been anti BOR when it comes to the 4th amendment especially. All of the BOR should matter to everyone, not just parts of it. Appointing judges that wipe their ass with the 4th but may save the 2A from further infringements is a net loss when it comes to our freedoms IMHO. Why we can’t elect people who don’t wish to infringe on ANY of the BOR is beyond me. Land of the free |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 4:10:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the Seventh Circuit and DC Circuit have both held there is a right to carry. You can now get a shall issue CHP in Chicago, and Washington, DC as a result. Not what we would like, but it is progress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: sure, you're right. How useful has that been in the past 10 years? Seen many pro-2A rulings out of the circuit courts? There's a few good opinions out there. And whoever sent me that PA supreme court opinion the other day... man somebody make sure those guys are reelected, or however they do it up there. Great opinion. But for the most part, the best we have are the pro-gun Fourth Amendment opinions out there: US v. Black, Northrup v. Toledo, Ubiles, US v. Leo. 4th Circ. has declined to extend Heller outside the home. United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 475 (4th Cir. 2011) 9th Circ. says it doesn't, of course. See Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 940 (9th Cir. 2016) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 5:01:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who appointed Benitez? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 5:07:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
W Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Who appointed Benitez? The biggest voice for the Second Amendment in the Fourth Circuit, who dissented from US v. Robinson, was Judge Roger Gregory, whom I've argued in front of, and also heard other oral arguments involving gun issues, where he was on the panel. He was appointed by Clinton, then confirmed while Bush was in office. I've had numerous Democrat appointed federal judges who were way more supportive of individual freedom. Even Scalia was in support of all sorts of jack booted thuggery in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Why originalist on the Second but textualist on the Fourth?? I have no idea. What we really need are federal judges who are originalist on both the 2nd and the 4th. There's no unwinding them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 5:09:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. And as far as the BOR is concerned there aren’t many ‘Conservative’ judges who aren’t a net loss either. 1) Those that end up voting with the left 2) The "moderate" swing votes 3) The solid conservatives Because of this, you need Republicans nominating lots of judges just to get a reasonable court. All the left appointed judges remain loyal to agenda driven decisions. I've heard some indication that Kagan is a rare leftist judge who might be a slight exception. The solid conservatives can be further broken down into types, some leaning more libertarian and others more focused on original intent and the text itself. But the result is that you end up with several conservative judges making what is in effect pro marijuana decisions because they are going by the constitution, while the other "conservative" judges and the liberal ones have the majority decision which favors government power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 5:15:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unfortunately, it's not a black and white issue. Nor Republican vs. Democrat. The biggest voice for the Second Amendment in the Fourth Circuit, who dissented from US v. Robinson, was Judge Roger Gregory, whom I've argued in front of, and also heard other oral arguments involving gun issues, where he was on the panel. He was appointed by Clinton, then confirmed while Bush was in office. I've had numerous Democrat appointed federal judges who were way more supportive of individual freedom. Even Scalia was in support of all sorts of jack booted thuggery in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Why originalist on the Second but textualist on the Fourth?? I have no idea. What we really need are federal judges who are originalist on both the 2nd and the 4th. There's no unwinding them. I don't have much knowledge of the circuit level judges, as I follow the Supremes more closely. I'm not aware of any good Democrat appointed Supremes. Kagan might be the closest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 5:21:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: sure, you're right. How useful has that been in the past 10 years? Seen many pro-2A rulings out of the circuit courts? The point, though, is you need the individual rights interpretation FIRST. The you need incorporation (which we have). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:16:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Back when Roberts was nominated the threshold was still 60 votes to break a filibuster and vote for cloture, it wasn't until Gorsuch and 2017 that the nuclear option was used to lower the threshold to 51 votes. The nuclear option wasn't really a thing until Harry Reid implemented it to get some of Obamas (non supreme court) judges through. He could have picked anyone he wanted, but picked Obamacare Roberts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:18:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bush (ALL of them) is a Globalist Cabal blueblood. Shouldn’t expect anything different. Just like Daddy appointed Souter. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:22:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More importantly, Heller very carefully laid out how strict scrutiny must always be applied where the RKBA was considered. Lower courts consistently held that whatever gun control measure up for examination didn't impact the RKBA despite clearly restricting possession or use, ergo the strict test did not apply. Again, they'll simply ignore SCOTUS. They're trying to ban ALL semi-autos despite Heller clearly holding this is flagrantly unconstitutional. . Trump is now changing that. Last year, he flipped the 2nd (NY), 3rd (NJ), and 11th (FL) circuit courts to majority "R" judges. He has almost flipped the 9th. I expect to see many pro-RKBA rulings, and even more so with Kavanaugh on the court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:33:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even a solid pro-gun POTUS would have trouble on that front, it isn't easy getting good stuff passed in Congress. The Trump effect on this will be in the courts. It would be good if he replaced a lefty justice to give us 6-3 for a good ruling on AWBs and mag bans. I had to wait 45 years for the court to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. This doesn't happen fast, and it requires the right set of judges. Trump has flipped circuit courts that govern 1/3 of the country, and has nearly flipped the 9th. The change in the 9th is so dramatic that it is no longer the most liberal circuit in the country. (Probably the 4th is now-- bad news for Virginians) The best thing supporters of the RKBA can do in 2020 is re-elect Trump, expand the Senate majority, and vote "R" in every election to retake the house and strengthen our hand for redistricting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:37:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: sure, you're right. How useful has that been in the past 10 years? Seen many pro-2A rulings out of the circuit courts? Trump and the GOP Senate is changing that. I expect to see a lot of wins in the next few years. BUT, you don't want to win too big at the circuit level then have the USSC overturn it. We've got to move slowly with a 5-4 majority with Roberts as the "swing" vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:38:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. Thomas got confirmed with 52 votes. Alito with 58. He could have picked anyone he wanted, but picked Obamacare Roberts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Back when Roberts was nominated the threshold was still 60 votes to break a filibuster and vote for cloture, it wasn't until Gorsuch and 2017 that the nuclear option was used to lower the threshold to 51 votes. The nuclear option wasn't really a thing until Harry Reid implemented it to get some of Obamas (non supreme court) judges through. He could have picked anyone he wanted, but picked Obamacare Roberts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2020 3:33:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Court back in session tomorrow?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 1:11:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Today, the Supreme Court released three opinions. Some, or all, of them were heard after NYSRPA.
Controversial case decisions are often held until June. is this a case of no news is good news? I think if the case was moot they would have already said so. Hopefully NYSRPA is a win and is being written by Justice Thomas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 2:08:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Today, the Supreme Court released three opinions. Some, or all, of them were heard after NYSRPA.
Controversial case decisions are often held until June. is this a case of no news is good news? I think if the case was moot they would have already said so. Hopefully NYSRPA is a win and is being written by Justice Thomas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 4:24:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Today, the Supreme Court released three opinions. Some, or all, of them were heard after NYSRPA.
Controversial case decisions are often held until June. is this a case of no news is good news? I think if the case was moot they would have already said so. Hopefully NYSRPA is a win and is being written by Justice Thomas. The three cases today were also unanimous, making them easy pickings. For Thomas writing it, there are 12 cases in the December session, the Justices try to spread the workload between them of majority opinions, so assume everyone gets one. Ginsburg and Breyer just released Holguin-Hernandez and Intel Corp. Ginsburg released Monasky yesterday too, so she's out of the running for a majority in December. Kavanaugh wrote McKinney, Gorsuch wrote Rodriguez. I would instead bet on Roberts as the author. The CJ assigns the privilege if he's in there majority, and he's shown the willingness to join the majority to seize the opinion for himself and temper it rather than let the left go crazy. The same could occur here, where he decides to only expand gun rights a little vs the other four might want constitutional carry effective 1 July. But then they'll have to resolve the five carry cases, Mance, Pena, etc. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 4:26:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A case involving a constitutional right potentially invalidating a law will most certainly be held until June. The three cases today were also unanimous, making them easy pickings. For Thomas writing it, there are 12 cases in the December session, the Justices try to spread the workload between them of majority opinions, so assume everyone gets one. Ginsburg and Breyer just released Holguin-Hernandez and Intel Corp. Ginsburg released Monasky yesterday too, so she's out of the running for a majority in December. Kavanaugh wrote McKinney, Gorsuch wrote Rodriguez. I would instead bet on Roberts as the author. The CJ assigns the privilege if he's in there majority, and he's shown the willingness to join the majority to seize the opinion for himself and temper it rather than let the left go crazy. The same could occur here, where he decides to only expand gun rights a little vs the other four might want constitutional carry effective 1 July. But then they'll have to resolve the five carry cases, Mance, Pena, etc. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Today, the Supreme Court released three opinions. Some, or all, of them were heard after NYSRPA.
Controversial case decisions are often held until June. is this a case of no news is good news? I think if the case was moot they would have already said so. Hopefully NYSRPA is a win and is being written by Justice Thomas. The three cases today were also unanimous, making them easy pickings. For Thomas writing it, there are 12 cases in the December session, the Justices try to spread the workload between them of majority opinions, so assume everyone gets one. Ginsburg and Breyer just released Holguin-Hernandez and Intel Corp. Ginsburg released Monasky yesterday too, so she's out of the running for a majority in December. Kavanaugh wrote McKinney, Gorsuch wrote Rodriguez. I would instead bet on Roberts as the author. The CJ assigns the privilege if he's in there majority, and he's shown the willingness to join the majority to seize the opinion for himself and temper it rather than let the left go crazy. The same could occur here, where he decides to only expand gun rights a little vs the other four might want constitutional carry effective 1 July. But then they'll have to resolve the five carry cases, Mance, Pena, etc. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2020 5:10:11 PM EDT
[#33]
I don't think Roberts would write it, Thomas has been the most outspoken on the 2A in recent years.
Hoping for good news as I would love to supplement my law review article |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 11:10:53 AM EDT
[#34]
While not entirely relevant, this article does mention this case.
The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment Even with the help of powerful 21st-century linguistic databases, the phrase "keep and bear arms" remains debatable. ...In the next few months, the Supreme Court will decide a Second Amendment case from New York. More likely than not, the justices will dismiss the case as moot, as the local government has already repealed the law at issue. But should the justices want to settle the questions of the Second Amendment more finally, now or in the future, they’ll find that corpus linguistics, by itself, cannot definitively resolve whether Heller was right. Neither Scalia’s nor Stevens’s error provides the gotcha moment that people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate had hoped for.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 11:22:00 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While not entirely relevant, this article does mention this case. The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment Even with the help of powerful 21st-century linguistic databases, the phrase "keep and bear arms" remains debatable. I know what that article is saying but they try to get too specific because that phrase means BOTH to keep and bear arms for (1) personal, individual purposes and (2) for militia purposes. Plus, the reason for BOTH purposes is simply to guard against tyranny, lawlessness and foreign invasion. The fact that people have chosen to disregard that plain meaning is because they have political and ideological motives that run contrary to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 11:27:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand the mystery of "keep and bear arms". I know what that article is saying but they try to get too specific because that phrase means BOTH to keep and bear arms for (1) personal, individual purposes and (2) for militia purposes. Plus, the reason for BOTH purposes is simply to guard against tyranny, lawlessness and foreign invasion. The fact that people have chosen to disregard that plain meaning is because they have political and ideological motives that run contrary to it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While not entirely relevant, this article does mention this case. The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment Even with the help of powerful 21st-century linguistic databases, the phrase "keep and bear arms" remains debatable. I know what that article is saying but they try to get too specific because that phrase means BOTH to keep and bear arms for (1) personal, individual purposes and (2) for militia purposes. Plus, the reason for BOTH purposes is simply to guard against tyranny, lawlessness and foreign invasion. The fact that people have chosen to disregard that plain meaning is because they have political and ideological motives that run contrary to it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 11:42:10 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yet somehow a right to privacy, implying a right to an abortion at certain gestational periods, somehow is interpreted out of this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 1:28:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Today, the Supreme Court released three opinions. Some, or all, of them were heard after NYSRPA.
Controversial case decisions are often held until June. is this a case of no news is good news? I think if the case was moot they would have already said so. Hopefully NYSRPA is a win and is being written by Justice Thomas. I doubt it, but I can hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 1:30:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand the mystery of "keep and bear arms". I know what that article is saying but they try to get too specific because that phrase means BOTH to keep and bear arms for (1) personal, individual purposes and (2) for militia purposes. Plus, the reason for BOTH purposes is simply to guard against tyranny, lawlessness and foreign invasion. The fact that people have chosen to disregard that plain meaning is because they have political and ideological motives that run contrary to it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While not entirely relevant, this article does mention this case. The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment Even with the help of powerful 21st-century linguistic databases, the phrase "keep and bear arms" remains debatable. I know what that article is saying but they try to get too specific because that phrase means BOTH to keep and bear arms for (1) personal, individual purposes and (2) for militia purposes. Plus, the reason for BOTH purposes is simply to guard against tyranny, lawlessness and foreign invasion. The fact that people have chosen to disregard that plain meaning is because they have political and ideological motives that run contrary to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2020 1:49:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The SC is making an example of NY so in the future, no one will play these games with them. Thank God the subject is the 2A. You hear that, Ralph, you cocksucker. Hell’s coming to breakfast (maybe). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 10:54:34 AM EDT
[#41]
Bump stock case rejected by Supreme Court
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:02:48 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I assume that was due to Kennedy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:07:46 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand the mystery of "keep and bear arms". I know what that article is saying but they try to get too specific because that phrase means BOTH to keep and bear arms for (1) personal, individual purposes and (2) for militia purposes. Plus, the reason for BOTH purposes is simply to guard against tyranny, lawlessness and foreign invasion. The fact that people have chosen to disregard that plain meaning is because they have political and ideological motives that run contrary to it. There's nothing mysterious about it to someone who can read at a 5th grade level....well, I guess that excludes most of congress then, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:08:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, Virginia might get a free ride on the USSC’s pique at being threatened by those jumped up bitches in Congress. You hear that, Ralph, you cocksucker. Hell’s coming to breakfast (maybe). Edit: and he's so pathetic, he can't even recognize that fact. A detestable creature, he is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:08:54 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bump stock case rejected by Supreme Court Is this new or are you referring to the injunction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:14:09 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, Virginia might get a free ride on the USSC's pique at being threatened by those jumped up bitches in Congress. You hear that, Ralph, you cocksucker. Hell's coming to breakfast (maybe). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The SC is making an example of NY so in the future, no one will play these games with them. Thank God the subject is the 2A. You hear that, Ralph, you cocksucker. Hell's coming to breakfast (maybe). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:15:08 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's only mystery to it because they want to sow confusion and doubt to get their way. There's nothing mysterious about it to someone who can read at a 5th grade level....well, I guess that excludes most of congress then, doesn't it? And they have been doing this for decades.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:31:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Link? Is this new or are you referring to the injunction? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bump stock case rejected by Supreme Court Is this new or are you referring to the injunction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:47:27 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Today read the "statement" towards the bottom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2020 11:53:05 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.scribd.com/document/449771442/3-2-2020-Supreme-Court-Orders read the "statement" towards the bottom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Today read the "statement" towards the bottom. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
