A great day for the 2nd amendment


SR9

SR9

New member
As just announced, Judge Neil Gorsuch was just confirmed to the SCOTUS. WHAT A GREAT DAY FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!
 

Neil Gorsuch is a very staunch believer in precedent. That means he is more likely to uphold precedents already set for infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights rather than just interpreting the words of the 2nd Amendment in their common meaning - bear arms means to carry them and shall not be infringed means no taxes or government permission imposed upon the right to carry arms. Granted, he is not likely to support creating new infringements - but he is also equally not likely to overturn any of the infringements that already exist.
 
NavyLCDR said:
Neil Gorsuch is a very staunch believer in precedent. That means he is more likely to uphold precedents already set for infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights rather than just interpreting the words of the 2nd Amendment in their common meaning - bear arms means to carry them and shall not be infringed means no taxes or government permission imposed upon the right to carry arms. Granted, he is not likely to support creating new infringements - but he is also equally not likely to overturn any of the infringements that already exist.
Click to expand...

That's right. Just like the man who appointed him, Gorsuch will maintain the status quo of federal infringements while not doing one damned thing to bring states into more/better/any Second Amendment compliance either.
 
Ringo said:
Supreme Court shoots down gun cases, upholds ban on assault weapons and open-carry​

Click to expand...

As of this writing, the court is split with five justices being appointed by Republican presidents, and only four by Dems.

Monday's turning-down of these two cases is just one among many other proofs that it doesn't matter who is president when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. It's no longer a court that deliberates and/or decides cases based on the language of the Constitution, it's a dictatorial oligarchy that routinely ignores constitutional language in favor of imposing its traitorous collective will upon the powerless-to-do-anything-about-it millions of citizens. Sometimes its' diktats inure to the Republican side of a given issue, and sometimes to the Democratic side, but never to the side that stands firmly on behalf of individual freedom.

This country has been under the rule of a dictatorial oligarchy since 1803 when Marbury was ruled correct in opposing the exercise of a presidential power of James Madison, literally the author of the document he was ruled to be in violation of. Marbury v. Madison also established the rubric of "judicial review," which I'm sure seemed innocuous enough at the time, but which in-practice, has further entrenched the high court as the dictatorial oligarchy Monday's turning-down of important Second Amendment issues exposes them as actually being.

Yet and still, every presidential election cycle will bring out the barbs and arrows of one side or the other spreading hysteria about how important it is for Candidate (R) or Candidate (D) to be elected so he can influence the Supreme Court for generations to come. One look at the steady decline of individual freedom in this country over the past 2+ centuries betrays the lie that who's in office when a Justice gets appointed matters one wit to preserving, or especially to restoring, our freedoms.

Ironically, just this morning I heard a blurb on the news that one of the judicial committees of Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate being talked about) was taking up national reciprocity today. Assuming it passes, which all indications are that it will, anyone think the Supremes will turn down the state(s) that brings the first constitutional challenge to it on the basis of states' rights? Any doubt in anyone's mind that not only will states' rights take another hit, but that in ruling on national reciprocity, the Second Amendment rights of Americans will take a back seat to the authority of government to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause? Monday's non-ruling will not even be a blip on the radar screen of court-watchers once such a ruling comes down, because that ruling would represent a defacto repeal of the Second Amendment.

But I thought Trump and Gorsuch were here to save the Second Amendment.......

Pfffft.

Blues
 
BluesStringer said:
As of this writing, the court is split with five justices being appointed by Republican presidents, and only four by Dems.

Monday's turning-down of these two cases is just one among many other proofs that it doesn't matter who is president when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. It's no longer a court that deliberates and/or decides cases based on the language of the Constitution, it's a dictatorial oligarchy that routinely ignores constitutional language in favor of imposing its traitorous collective will upon the powerless-to-do-anything-about-it millions of citizens. Sometimes its' diktats inure to the Republican side of a given issue, and sometimes to the Democratic side, but never to the side that stands firmly on behalf of individual freedom.

This country has been under the rule of a dictatorial oligarchy since 1803 when Marbury was ruled correct in opposing the exercise of a presidential power of James Madison, literally the author of the document he was ruled to be in violation of. Marbury v. Madison also established the rubric of "judicial review," which I'm sure seemed innocuous enough at the time, but which in-practice, has further entrenched the high court as the dictatorial oligarchy Monday's turning-down of important Second Amendment issues exposes them as actually being.

Yet and still, every presidential election cycle will bring out the barbs and arrows of one side or the other spreading hysteria about how important it is for Candidate (R) or Candidate (D) to be elected so he can influence the Supreme Court for generations to come. One look at the steady decline of individual freedom in this country over the past 2+ centuries betrays the lie that who's in office when a Justice gets appointed matters one wit to preserving, or especially to restoring, our freedoms.

Ironically, just this morning I heard a blurb on the news that one of the judicial committees of Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate being talked about) was taking up national reciprocity today. Assuming it passes, which all indications are that it will, anyone think the Supremes will turn down the state(s) that brings the first constitutional challenge to it on the basis of states' rights? Any doubt in anyone's mind that not only will states' rights take another hit, but that in ruling on national reciprocity, the Second Amendment rights of Americans will take a back seat to the authority of government to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause? Monday's non-ruling will not even be a blip on the radar screen of court-watchers once such a ruling comes down, because that ruling would represent a defacto repeal of the Second Amendment.

But I thought Trump and Gorsuch were here to save the Second Amendment.......

Pfffft.

Blues
Click to expand...
SR9 sighting. He seems happy.

https://goo.gl/images/sGycxX

The Place to Be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 416 (members: 0, guests: 416)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top