Jump to content
Xchief30

Which new SC Justice will help with our gun laws ??

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Zeke said:

It’s interesting the right is looking at 2a ( at least we are) the left is laser focused on roe.

Issues of individual freedom are always the most galvanizing IMO. They touch a nerve. Understand it or not, if you're Progressive, chances are you view Roe as absolutely critical to protecting women's individual freedom... just as if you're solidly on the right side of the spectrum, you view gun rights as being critical to protecting individual freedom also. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. 

All I can say is that once he announces, oh boy... it's going to be quite a wild show!! I fully expect shenanigans... significant digging of dirt on the appointee - even if they have to make up some "fake news". I wouldn't be surprised to see some other nefarious moves to impact the vote either. It's going to be political war of the ugliest kind! And, of course, the Republican are no angels either - a few will hold out to leverage their power and get some stuff for their districts. Oh, yeah... it's going to be craziness. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GRIZ said:

"My personal feelings have nothing to do with my decisions.  My decisions are based on the case I'm hearing, the law, and the COTUS.

Barrett's good points IMO:

1.  No one can complain she doesn't understand women's issues.

2.  She is a devout Catholic.  They touched on this during her prior confirmation hearing IIRC.  The Democrats aren't that stupid they would try to attack a nominee's religion to disqualify her.

3.  She's a little bit younger (46) which should give her at least 30 years on SCOTUS.  This can be good or this can be bad.

It's sometimes hard to determine how someone would be once they get to SCOTUS.  Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan.  Her track record showed her to be rather conservative. When she got to SCOTUS she became a swing vote on many issues.

I would say your First paragraph and Last paragraph go hand in hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Barrett's 2A views are pretty much unknown.  She hasn't been involved in any 2A cases.  She passed her confirmation hearings with even the Democrats voting for her.  It would be suicide for any nominee to say anything but, "My personal feelings have nothing to do with my decisions.  My decisions are based on the case I'm hearing, the law, and the COTUS.

Barrett's good points IMO:

1.  No one can complain she doesn't understand women's issues.

2.  She is a devout Catholic.  They touched on this during her prior confirmation hearing IIRC.  The Democrats aren't that stupid they would try to attack a nominee's religion to disqualify her.

3.  She's a little bit younger (46) which should give her at least 30 years on SCOTUS.  This can be good or this can be bad.

It's sometimes hard to determine how someone would be once they get to SCOTUS.  Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan.  Her track record showed her to be rather conservative. When she got to SCOTUS she became a swing vote on many issues.

Hold my beer and watch this

~Diane Finestein

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-amy-coney-barrett-senator-attacks-catholic-judicial-nominee/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WP22 said:

 

Hold my beer and watch this

~Diane Finestein

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-amy-coney-barrett-senator-attacks-catholic-judicial-nominee/

 

Yes but if you read the entire article you linked Feinstein back pedaled in her statement on her line of questioning.  The backlash the Democrats received over their attacks on her during her prior confirmation hearings makes one doubt they'll try this again.  Democrats are not stupid, it's just so much they know is wrong (apologies to Ronald Reagan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Post just published an article labelling Hardiman an extremist on gun rights, who if named to the supreme court could vote to strike down gun laws in NJ, NY, and CA, leading to an increase in legal gun ownership and concealed carry.  The Post seems to view this outcome as an extinction-level event. 

Hardiman labeled an extremist on 2nd amendment rights

So, I'm liking Hardiman.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 10X said:

The Washington Post just published an article labelling Hardiman an extremist on gun rights, who if named to the supreme court could vote to strike down gun laws in NJ, NY, and CA, leading to an increase in legal gun ownership and concealed carry.  The Post seems to view this outcome as an extinction-level event. 

Hardiman labeled an extremist on 2nd amendment rights

So, I'm liking Hardiman.

That was awesome.  They don’t seem to fond of Hardiman or Kavanaugh.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an email fro the NAGR:

 
 
   
 
     
 
 
 

The shortlist on guns

Dear Brian,

President Trump is expected to announce a historic pick for the Supreme Court on Monday.

The person he chooses will undoubtedly shape the future of the Second Amendment for generations.

As speculation ramps up on who Trump might pick, you deserve to know exactly where the top contenders stand on the Second Amendment.

After all, with important cases up for grabs, including the fundamental right to carry, possess and even own a firearm, the importance of this pick cannot be overstated.

If President Trump nominates a PRO-GUN candidate, we could see the Supreme Court strike down Obama-era gun controls left and right.

But if he nominates a weak-kneed candidate who’s attached to the DC salon, then this once in a generation chance to solidify a pro-gun, pro-Constitution Supreme Court could be lost for good.

That’s why I hope you’ll sign your petition urging President Trump and Senate Majority Leader McConnell to nominate and confirm a pro-gun Justice TODAY!

With no less than the right for our children and grandchildren to own a firearm at stake, here’s what we know so far:

BEST CHOICE: Utah U.S. Senator Mike Lee

As reported on Fox News United States Senator Mike Lee is on the shortlist and he’s already been interviewed by President Trump himself.

As a member of the National Association for Gun Rights, Senator Lee has a solid pro-gun voting record in the U.S. Senate.

Lee voted against all of President Obama’s unconstitutional gun control schemes in 2013.

He’s also stood firmly against other gun control regulations, including “bipartisan” Feinstein-backed proposals to strip gun rights from law-abiding citizens without due process.

When it comes to protecting the Second Amendment and rolling unconstitutional Obama and Clinton-era gun controls, Mike Lee is by far the BEST choice for the Supreme Court.

GREAT CHOICE: Judge Raymond Kethledge

Judge Raymond Kethledge currently serves on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals serving Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee since 2008.

If Judge Kethledge’s record on the bench is any indication, he’d be a VERY pro-Second Amendment Justice.

Kethledge correctly ruled that mental illness is not a permanent classification that can bar gun ownership for life. 1

He correctly ruled that government has the burden to prove with actual evidence, rather than mere generalizations, that he is presently mentally ill.

Think of the 250,000 veterans who have been already prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for such reasons, or the millions of law-abiding citizens facing permanent blacklisting on the Brady-NICS database.

Kethledge’s ruling is hope that law-abiding citizens falsely accused by a bureaucrat may someday have their gun rights restored.

It demonstrates that Judge Kethledge understands the dangers posed to your rights by unconstitutional laws hastily ushered in by politicians in both parties trying to placate the anti-gun hysteria.

VERY GOOD CHOICE: Judge Amy Barrett

Judge Amy Barrett currently serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals serving Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin since 2017.

Though her tenure on the bench is relatively short, Judge Barrett shows early signs of being a pro-gun and pro-Constitution Justice.

In a published journal article for Notre Dame Law Review, Barrett praised Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the landmark pro-gun Heller decision, for his originalist approach to the Constitution. 2

Though she has yet to rule on any Second Amendment case directly, if Judge Barrett seeks to model herself after Justice Scalia, that’s an encouraging first step.

UNCERTAIN CHOICE: Judge Bret Kavanaugh

Judge Brian Kavanaugh currently serves on the DC Court of Appeals, and has deep ties to the Bush Administration.

On the surface, Kavanaugh has sided correctly on two Second Amendment cases, which leaves the door open that he could vote ok on the Supreme Court.

However, several outlets including The Daily Caller, Axios, and The Washington Post have described Kavanaugh as being the “low energy” pick “facing questions” from conservatives.

And questions remain on whether or not Kavanuaugh left open the possibility that some gun controls are permissible, when he said:

“[The Supreme Court left] little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” 3

Though he ruled right on this case, what gun bans Kavanuaugh thinks would meet that test is unclear.

As you know, Supreme Court picks frequently turn out to be LESS “pro-gun” or “pro-constitution” once they’re confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Shocking rulings from Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, and David Souter have resulted in less freedom.

Of course, no Supreme Court nominee can be guaranteed to rule pro-gun.

But, I’m sure you agree, the last thing gun owners need is any doubt upfront on how Trump’s nominee will rule on the Second Amendment.

So, I hope you’ll sign your petition urging President Trump and Senate Majority Leader McConnell to nominate and confirm a pro-gun Justice TODAY!

Of course, there’s always an outside chance that President Trump could nominate someone else.

So stay tuned for further developments.

As we gear up for the biggest nomination fight in a generation, hope I can count on your most generous contribution of $100, $50, or $25 today.

As we did with the Justice Gorsuch confirmation in 2017, NAGR is launching a major nationwide campaign to gather and deliver petitions to both the White House and Senate.

These efforts are critically important to the future of our gun rights, but we need your help.

And your contribution of $100, $50, or even $25 today will ensure we are prepared for the massive fight ahead of us.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
President
National Association for Gun Rights


P.S. President Trump is expected to announce a historic pick for the Supreme Court on Monday.

The person he chooses will undoubtedly shape the future of the Second Amendment for generations.

As we did with the Justice Gorsuch confirmation in 2017, NAGR is launching a major nationwide campaign to gather and deliver petitions to both the White House and Senate.

These efforts are critically important to the future of our gun rights, but we need your help.

And your contribution of $100, $50, or even $25 today will ensure we are prepared for the massive fight ahead of us.

 
References:

1 = Tyler v Hillsdale County Sheriffs Dept.; No. 13-1876; Decided 9/15/16; Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2 = Barrett, Amy Coney. “Originalism and Stare Decisis.” Notre Dame Law Review. Volume 92, Issue 5, Article 2. 7-2017
3 = Heller v. DC, No. 10-7036; Decided 10/4/11, DC Court of Appeals

 
The National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. is a non-profit, tax-exempt advocacy organization under section 501(c)4 of the IRC. Contributions or gifts to NAGR are not tax deductible for IRS purposes. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O. Box 1776, Loveland, Colorado 80539. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.


To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

 

    

 
 
 
 

b?bt=1530915827.5647&s=messagePage&farm=f4262&ac=_iyRLncUCm1lvFLNp.n4fyvnLR4-&mailboxId=VjN-FtDmfqnZGaAEZ53CsvgRVaeFhZm1UPXZF5vdtLogk26N1WmFa6pl0Ig_n8lV16iRTkufy9ILQy9FneJ_Zqykxg&.rand=979363550

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Hardiman is my guess. Mitch McConnell has suggested that Thomas Hardiman or Raymond Kethledge would be most likely to be confirmed by the Senate. Thomas Hardiman was on the short list to fill Justice Scalia's seat.

He's a constitutionalist and would be a great Justice for 2A rights. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

I think it will be Barrett and they the Dems can fight it out and go after a her or Hardiman

Unfortunately from a 2A perspective Barrett is an unknown compared with Hardiman or Kavanaugh. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bklynracer said:

I think it will be Barrett and they the Dems can fight it out and go after a her or Hardiman

Barrett makes me nervous.  She's probably the the one who the Dems will find hardest to fight against but I don't get the warm fuzzies about how she'd rule on 2A cases.

At this point the 2A is my sole barometer.  She doesn't have any history to gauge how she might vote, so for me it's not worth the risk.  That's my $.02.  If Donnie calls to ask my advice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it will be Amul Thaper

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/395897-outside-candidate-supreme-court-buoyed-mcconnell-backing

 

Can't find any 2A rulings but he is ultra conservative and wouldn't speak to his own father because his father voted for Obama.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really really hoping on Hardiman !!! He was on the first pick list with Gorsuch, is friends with Trump's sister. I think he has a great chance and he will be fantastic for 2A !!!!!

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is John Lott on why the appointment of the next SCJ will be critical for the 2A.

I haven't seen a post about it, but the CA Supreme Court upheld a law that they admit was impossible to comply with. Consequently a whole host of handguns are now illegal to sell in CA. Lott explained.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 45Doll said:

Here is John Lott on why the appointment of the next SCJ will be critical for the 2A.

I haven't seen a post about it, but the CA Supreme Court upheld a law that they admit was impossible to comply with. Consequently a whole host of handguns are now illegal to sell in CA. Lott explained.

I hope all this nonsense is knocked down soon. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, capt14k said:

I still think it will be Amul Thaper

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/395897-outside-candidate-supreme-court-buoyed-mcconnell-backing

 

Can't find any 2A rulings but he is ultra conservative and wouldn't speak to his own father because his father voted for Obama.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

i'm fine with ultra-conservative......but not speaking to his dad due to an election? that's bullshit and childish. that by itself would make me worry about him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 45Doll said:

Here is John Lott on why the appointment of the next SCJ will be critical for the 2A.

I haven't seen a post about it, but the CA Supreme Court upheld a law that they admit was impossible to comply with. Consequently a whole host of handguns are now illegal to sell in CA. Lott explained.

"The California court decided that even if a gun control law is “impossible” to obey, that doesn’t invalidate it."

LOL, if thats not proof the loonys are running the asylum i dont know what is!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm fine with ultra-conservative......but not speaking to his dad due to an election? that's bullshit and childish. that by itself would make me worry about him.
I'm guessing it turned into a philosophical argument that lead to them not speaking. They talk again now so I'm fine with it.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, siderman said:

"The California court decided that even if a gun control law is “impossible” to obey, that doesn’t invalidate it."

LOL, if thats not proof the loonys are running the asylum i dont know what is!

This is apparently a liberal doctrine for some time.

I remember after the Columbine shooting during a press conference Janet Reno announced more gun laws were needed.  One reporter asked her what she thought of those who say just enforce the laws we already have.  Her response was something like,

"It doesn't matter if we enforce the laws.  We just need more gun laws"

This coming from the Attorney General of the United States.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, siderman said:

"The California court decided that even if a gun control law is “impossible” to obey, that doesn’t invalidate it."

LOL, if thats not proof the loonys are running the asylum i dont know what is!

From the articles I read on that case, this was a screwup by the folks bringing the lawsuit. They did not challenge the constitutionality of the CA law just that it was impossible to comply. The court said that while they tact could be used to invalidate an individual prosecution under the law it could not be used to invalidate the entire law.  Since the constitutionality wasn’t challenged the court said there wasn’t really anything for them to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a game player, so I'm not certain this can be believed, but apparently he's made his choice this morning - and according to their inside sources, MSN believes it's either Kavanaugh or Hardiman - that those 2 are the "finalists". I'll be glued to the TV at 9:00 pm! :o

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-decided-on-supreme-court-nominee-after-a-morning-of-seeking-advice/ar-AAzNMSr?ocid=spartanntp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...