CT circumvents process to pass Anti-gun bill...

The Supreme Court will overturn Heller and MacDonald at the first chance they get, should there be 5 or 6 leftists on the Court. In the above decisions, the dissenting opinions were nothing but pages of anti-gun drivel cloaked as reasoned jurisprudence. We can expect nothing less from them should they gain the majority on the Court.
 
The governments will have to depend on the payment of registration fees for the guns. If they cannot get enough of these funds it can cause a significant budget problem on state governments.

Not promoting civil disobedience, but only pointing out the consequences if gun owners by whole agreement chose to not register their guns and pay any fees into the program.
 
The Supreme Court will overturn Heller and MacDonald at the first chance they get, should there be 5 or 6 leftists on the Court. In the above decisions, the dissenting opinions were nothing but pages of anti-gun drivel cloaked as reasoned jurisprudence. We can expect nothing less from them should they gain the majority on the Court.
Click to expand...

I agree...and it could come soon...
 
The Supreme Court will overturn Heller and MacDonald at the first chance they get, should there be 5 or 6 leftists on the Court
Click to expand...
I doubt it. One of the central tenets of their trade is precedent. They're supposed to be making constitutional judgements that stick, particularly when it comes to civil rights.

If they start reversing decisions only a couple of years after they're made, then the Court's very credibility as an arbiter of the Constitution gets thrown into question.

Reversing Heller and McDonald would be a tremendous sea change. The only such prior action on that level would be reversing Plessy v. Ferguson, and that took nearly 60 years.
 
YUP, Connecticut is down the dumper.

There has NOT been ANY Connecticut Legislator ( Local OR Washington)
who Has publicly supported 2A

so therefore they are all SUPPORTING the extinction of 2A

OK Connecticut voters... next election (if there will be one)
VOTE them all out ! I know it is wishful thinking, as this state clearly
has it's head up the Democrat Party's Butt...

Side note.. It is noted by some of the responses , that the CT crowd will exempt the Law enforcement branch and the Military for any of the bans..
( unlike the NY bunch of bums, who now have to 'fix' their law. )
 
I don't know if the past precedent principle has the power it once did.

I read a book about judicial decision making and scholars said that the best SCOTUS predictor was their politics. They then selectively filter past precedents to support their politics.

Given that in McDonald, IIRC, several of the justices opined that there was not a right to possess firearms - they seem to be denying the Heller precedent.

If the court changes, I would be leery of pushing another major gun case to them. That was the argument against going for Heller - some weren't sure it wouldn't go against us.

Even with Heller, the Scalia 'doctrine' of reasonable, unusual, blah, blah guns is cited as supporting bans.
 
I doubt it. One of the central tenets of their trade is precedent. They're supposed to be making constitutional judgements that stick, particularly when it comes to civil rights.

If they start reversing decisions only a couple of years after they're made, then the Court's very credibility as an arbiter of the Constitution gets thrown into question.

Reversing Heller and McDonald would be a tremendous sea change. The only such prior action on that level would be reversing Plessy v. Ferguson, and that took nearly 60 years.
Click to expand...

I've got to agree with Tom.

Sure, we've got to worry about future appointments. But let's not do "the sky is falling" thing either. Constitutionally, things are FAR better now than they were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's. Let's allow ourselves to be happy about that rather than all doom and gloom.

We've GOT to find a way to broaden the GOP base. Losing the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections is a trend that has to stop. Find a way to get more women to support the party. Emphasize the economic message. Vote GOP because you want a good job and you want good jobs for your children. And you don't want your children facing a national debt which can never be paid down and therefore cripples all our future actions.

Far too many women see the social conservative side of the GOP as a reason not to vote for them. I respect the pro-life movement but the truth is that many women see that position as explicitly anti-women's rights. They are as strident about that as we are about gun rights. My wife and two sisters are both that way. No argument will ever convince them otherwise. Either find some sort of compromise position or de-emplasize it as a core position. Or continue to lose... the older generation dies off and the younger one has different ideas.

Please don't let Hillary win next time.... having the Clintons back in the WH would be hard to live with!

Gregg
 
I appreciate the sentiment of the last post but general political strategies are not our paradigm to discuss. So, I request that we don't go down that line to start a social conservative vs. economic conservative vs. liberal, etc. flame war.

To start to debate specific issues as women's rights - don't.

This is a hint and I won't infract the past post but let's not go there.

Thanks.
 
Oh... I see the potential problem you are addressing Glenn. And the potential for such a discussion to further divide us when we need to be united.

Thanks,

Gregg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top