Are guns and gun owners viewed favorably by the Supreme Court ??

S

SOSARMS

New member
At least in a small way, maybe yes......
Reason.......Approximately 2 years ago on his trip to Indiana to give a commencement speech at a college, supreme court judge Clarence Thomas stopped by our facility to have some incidental work done. In setting up this meeting from one in our business, several local officials were invited to meet and greet him and enjoy an afternoon brunch and chat....One of the invited guests, our local Sheriff, decided to bring a "guest" of his own....a full auto UZI 9mm that was captured in a murder case and retained by the sheriffs' dept. Upon clearing it with the U.S. deputies accompanying the judge, we proceeded to step behind the buildings and shoot at some targets, both full auto and semi....Judge Thomas enjoyed himself immensely !!! I'm sure that experience will weigh in his thoughts if gun related issues come up...Doesn't hurt to have friends in high places.........
Smart move by our Sheriff!!! huh ??
It was election year as well, so we had to extend his reign !!!
 
Are gun and gunowners viewed favorably by the Supreme Court?

BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Property owners, the Fourth Amendment and free speech aren't even looked upon favorably by the SC.

What makes you think they would suddenly adhere to the Constitution and be anymore benevolent towards someone who owns guns?

A rogue justice here and there like Thomas? Yeah....maybe.
The Court as a whole? When donkeys fly.:mad:
 
The supreme court is suppose to interperet the constitution, accordingly the right to bear arms,
By all logic we should be looked on favorably as gun owners
with that in mind the system only works if the people make it work, checks and balances is the old line, but they dont always work, The old story of the trail of tears is the best example, the natives took that case to the supreme court against the state and won it, but yet the president used the military to move the indians out anyways, if america doesnt question the actions of the govt. than our rights can be swept under the carpet, its our duty to fight for our rights, I view every political party with sceptasism, help organizations like the NRA help us, Im not a big beleiver in needing high capacity and crazy stuff like that, but if you let them out law these type things its only a matter of time till its any semi, then pistol, then all guns.... just my two cents
 
Clarence Thomas is without question the best justice on the Bench. I may disagree with some of his decisions -- I think the Fed Government should be funding some things it doesn't have constitutional authority to fund, and I wish he wouldn't interpret the right to privacy so narrowly -- but his reasoning is almost always top-notch.

The country would be a much better place if Ron Paul was a constitutional monarch and Clarence Thomas was the country's singular supreme justice.

The other justices are the problem. Every single one of them has demonstrated a lack of concern for justice, and a tendency to vote their own personal morals.
 
I think the pendullum may be starting to swing in the other direction, though. Maybe we should have a Supreme Court Shoot.........sorry, let me rephrase that.........maybe we should have a shoot for the judges!!!
 
I think a majority of SCOTUS is more favorably disposed toward the 2nd Amendment now than in several decades, but I don't think they are favorably disposed toward breaking any new ground.

And while Justice Thomas no doubt enjoyed his Uzi adventure, I'd be very surprised if that one event made a significant difference in his views. I recently saw a photo of Chuckie Schumer firing a full auto pistol and grinning like the Grinch taking the last ornament from a Christmas tree. I doubt he has since changed his anti-gun stance in any positive way.

Face it, most pols don't care deeply about the issues in the way most of the populace does. The pols job isn't to sell our choices to Washington; it's to sell Washington's mandates to us.
 
Schumer has said that when he was a kid he used to shoot, so what.

Bush plays cowboy and would've signed the AWB.

A high level politician's views on the RKBA are totally controlled by what he or she thinks will impact his or her election.

Gore was progun and antiabortion till he went national. Bush signed the TX CHL and then wore knee pads to the soccer moms on the AWB.

As far as the SCOTUS, I attended a seminar led by Don Kates - he says that both the progun and antigun folks DON'T want a real SCOTUS test. Both fear the outcome.

If the SCOTUS decided that the state could control firearms in a definitive manner - then the RKBA cause is screwed. Of course, you could go live in the woods and wait for the revolution. When a gun unfriendly adminstration got in - they could ban whatever they wanted. Oops.

The antis fear the opposite - an overturning of gun laws across the country. In reality - that would probably just affect a few states as we now have 40 shall issues states. However, some of the non-shall issue states are big ones to the left - like NY, CA, MA, IL.

If you note, the SCOTUS doesn't take gun cases that often and if they do, they don't use the 2nd as a legal basis.

The Bush boys could have used the DC cases to make a strong gun stand but instead they supported the DC government - that give you a hint.

Last, many organizations would suffer if the SCOTUS truly went progun. The NRA would becomes a few guys in duck hunting suits and some bullseye. Their main business is : THE UN IS COMING AND DIANE IS GOING TO AND HEAR COMES HILLARY AND ....
 
Bush plays cowboy and would've signed the AWB.
Click to expand...

I thought according to a few thousand gun board commandos that what he actually meant by "I will sign the AWB" is "I will not sign the AWB." 'Cause, he's progun and he's from Texas! I mean new england.
 
How many of the Justices are gun owners? I would guess Thomas is being from Georgia. Do you think they get a break on DC's gun ban?

A few years ago when the Tobacco cases were going in full steam there was an article about justices that were smokers. I belive that Thomas and Scalia are. Maybe there's one out there about gun ownership.
 
You have to watch the gun ownership thing. I think the diagnostic is whether they are serious handgun owners and have shot things like IDPA or IPSC.

If Scalia is a hunter, which I think he is - with Chaney - DUCK! - that doesn't mean much. Hunting guns are not really relevant to the RKBA. When you hear a 'gun conservative' talk about sportsmen - that's just BS. One can have a society with hunting and no real RKBA. Guns are locked up and not allowed for use in self-defense. Those folks would easily ban a Glock or AR as not useful for the sportsman. It doesn't translate into support for carry laws, necessarily.

If those guys believe in the power of the state, then gun ownership of sporting arms may not be really predictive if they would overturn something like the DC handgun ban.
 
Clarence Thomas has stated that he would like to see a 2nd Amendment case come before the Court. It's generally assumed, based on that and other comments, that he would look favorably on the 2nd Amendment in such a case.

The Court has, in other cases and even under more liberal Chief Justices, used the 2nd Amendment involving individual rights. This, of course, dicta and the Court isn't bound by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top