Supreme court, does it matter?

O

oberkommando

New member
For our cause does it really matter who gets in? This court has been ducking the gun issue since 34, Anyone think that will change in the future? How so and will it only change if a liberal appoints a few new Justices? Even if the liberals get in, we have the law on our side, so dont you think they will duck it also?Looking for opinions.
 
I have heard a Judge say, after a recess, "Well, time to go back out and listen to more lies."

heh. Nice attitude. Funny thing is I really like the guy as a person, even though he is against everything I believe in politically. I would go very far out of my way to do him a favor, but I would vote for him the day something hot froze over.

I don't think it matters diddly who sits on the bench. One is as bad as the other. One is just a bit quicker in getting where they both want to go.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
oberkommando,

I respectfully disagree with you. The second amendment has been largely forgotten (for whatever reasons), but I truly believe that a landmark second amendment case is bound to come before the court within the next 5 years. If it does come before the court, even ultra liberal constitutional scholars (such as Harvard's Laurence Tribe in his law school textbook!) concede that the second amendment means what WE say it means. The only way around this "correct" interpretation would be a constitutional amendment (which I believe is highly unlikely unless we all just roll over and die) or a supreme court comprised of activist liberals who demonstrably could care less what the constitution actually means. This predisposition of ultra liberals has been demonstrated time and again! (Remember Harry Blackman?? Millions of holy innocents certainly do.)

It is significant, I believe, that the large majority of states have concealed carry laws, which are absolutely antithetical to the HCI types. These laws exist against the backdrop of an ever mounting political movement against guns and against the more significant backdrop that a great number of people are uncertain (if not oblivious) of what the second amendment really says. I think that the political and psychological impact of a Supreme Court decision affirming the Second Amendment could be truly awesome.

By the way, do you feel the same way about who gets elected president, to congress, etc? Just curious. If you do, have you checked out whether there are any better countries you could move to?

[This message has been edited by Oscar (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
Let me preface my remarks by saying I do not have specific references to back this up, but it comes from sources that I normally consider reliable.

It's my understanding that several members of the current court (& Clarence Thomas in particular) are, in fact, anxious to hear a 2nd Amendment case. Their desire is to affirm, once and for all, that it is an individual right. I can only suppose that the right case hasn't come along yet.

If this is indeed the case (and I fervently want to believe it), then it would matter very much who's appointed.

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
 
Oscar, you need to take the time to read all the ? marks. For your infomation those mean the poster is asking a question not offering an opinion. I never put how I feel about the issue or took one side or another so find it hard to understand who you are disagreeing with. Again was "JUST LOOKING FOR OPINIONS" not looking to fight about this thing.

MK86FCC, I belivev Scalia would also like to rule on the Second with Thomas.
 
You guys are right. Scalia and Thomas has been consistently pro-constitution in their decisions.

So it is VERY important that we get more justices into the SC who reflects the same attitude as these two men. We can't blame the entire supreme court for the shortcomings of the majority of justices.
 
Oberkommando,

Sorry, my friend. My response was, perhaps, a little pointed at the end. I meant no offense, and I apologize that it rubbed you the wrong way. You were indeed asking for opinions, and all in all I stick by mine (other than the last paragraph, of course!)

By the way, Scalia and Thomas are clearly in our "court" (pun intended), and don't forget the Chief, William Rehnquist. He's not about to cave on this or anything else that matters to me. Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens are very liberal and would be "suspect" on this (unless, of course, they are intellectually honest). O'Connor and Kennedy (both Reagan appointees) and Souter (a Bush appointee) are big question marks.

Humbly beseeching your forgiveness,
Oscar

[This message has been edited by Oscar (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
oberkommando and others,

Let's face it both sides of the gun control issue do not want a SC hearing on the 2nd. HCI doesn't want their day in court because they know almost certianly they will loose. When the SC listens to a case they MUST look to the intent of the founders in their rationalizations.That is why decisions take so long. The HCI claim the the Second refers to a National Guard is idiotic. The founders were brilliant men, but they could not have the insight to know that in two hundred years and organization called the National Guard would even exist.

Have you read the Federalist Papers or the pre-constitutional Articles of Confederation, or the writings of Jefferson? These papers are very clear on their attitude of the right to bear arms. For the founding fathers...and mothers (yes my wife is looking over my shoulder) ;) the inability of a citizen to own firearms was the unthinkable act of a tyrant. One of the things the British did when attempting to pacify the revolutionaries was to ban firearms from the citizens. This ban was terrible beyond the obvious inabilty to fight British troops, for two reasons. First it left the people totally dependent upon the British troops for protection. Who for the most part didn't give a damn about the colonists. Bing unarmed left those at the city edges or in the country side open for attacks from hostile indians and highwaymen. Sound familiar people?

Second, the denial of firearms ownership took away the right to provide meat for the family table. The people were forced to go to crown government approved hunters or stores to buy their meat. Sound familiar folks?

In effect the limitation of firearms was an abomination in the eyes of the Founders. First, the God given right of self protection was removed and replaced by the protection of the state.(the right to life) Second, the ability of the man to provide for himself and his family was removed. (the right to property AKA pursuit of happiness) So once again these people were dependent upon the state for their food. When you are dependent to someones for your food, you are a slave. (right of liberty)

If a simplton like myself can figure this out, do you not thing the great minds of our Supreme Court can't do the same? The strange thing about the Supreme Court is that when addressing a true Constitutional issue, not interpritation issue that they are trying validate under an admendment for political reasons, the Court justices become very conservative.

Since I said both sides don't want their day in court, let me say something about the gun industry. Gun owners are not a well oranized bunch. Think about it. The NRA, GOA and other groups try to do a decent job. But we do not show a unified front. If all the hunters, trap and skeet shooters got together with the handgunners, joined these organizations the clout would be so great that no politician would dare bring up gun control. Since we don't do this, politically we are a seperate bands of gun nuts and don't demand any attention.

The gun industry looks at the lack of support and sees no political protection for their products. For the most part, the gun industry is made up of pretty small companies. We see alot of Ruger bashing from time to time because of Bill Ruger's rolling over on certain issues. He is doing what he has to do to survive in the current political climate. Lawyers have learned a long time ago that it is much easier (and cheaper) to get the other side to roll over than go to trial. This is exactly what the government is doing in their lawsuites and pressure on the gunmakers. Does Smith and Wesson, or Colt, Ruger, Remington have the financial resources to go head to head with the resources of the federal or even a state government? I seriously doubt it. I once heard a businessman complaining about a court hearing on an issue he had with the Federal Trade Commission. He said, he showed up with one lawyer, the government should up with three. When he showed up with two lawyers, the government showed up with six. He eventually gave up the case. Not because he felt he was wrong, and from every indication was he wasn't, he simply ran out of money.

The gun industry is caught in this type of a trap. They can't outspend the government. So they capitulate and try to save their companies. I believe it is no the getting to the Supreme Court that scares the gun industry, it is the expense of getting there and hoping that the Court will even hear the case.

I am one who wants the gun ownership issue to get to the Supreme Court. I want this thing to be put to bed once and for all. First it would finacially break HCI and put them out of business. Second, all their lies and misinformation will be out in the open for all to see. No one wins a Supreme Court issue by making childish emotional grandstanding rants like HCI loves to do. Third, a SC decision that the 2nd is valid and a right of all free citizens, we will have most of the stupid gun laws striken from the books and the ATF and other LEA's can be freed up do the jobs they were created to do.

I guess I can go on and on, but I will shut up at this point. Sorry if I was long winded.

Oh yes, before I forget. We need to get out and vote. We have a chance to start putting things right soon. If Gore or Bradly get in office, go and kiss your guns good bye. There are several political analysts that are saying the left will take the house this year. Mainly because they all believe we will have a republican president and history does bear this out. So we must vote to prevent this. I am a registered democrate, so I'm not simply pushing for the republicans. I made a serious mistake eight years ago and will never do that again. Please, tell everyone to vote. the left does mobilize there forces well, too many of us do not. VOTE!

------------------
Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona territory

"The unarmed man is a subject, the armed man is a citizen."
 
I too believe quite strongly in the need for a supreme ct., case no matter what the outcome. I dont have the case information available but It seems reasonable that the liberals won their case in court....and from that first win built continuing wins on each issue.... and from that point were able to ride the roller coaster of success----If we are to win back our constitution and our freedoms, we need to win their too. fubsy.
 
I'm with Oscar. There will eventually be a clear cut case in some state or city where
there is a total prohibition on any firearm or ammo ownership.

Some cities come close but there are still loopholes for some.

If for example, LA bans ownership of all ammo and mandates that all ammo would have to be bought at ranges - that is the kind of case that clearly is a 2nd Amend. case.

One like that should be brought to a friendly Supreme Court. The court might overturn that.
Another would be a case that might compell a state to issue shall issue carry permits.

So the court does matter. Do you think the people in the abortion battle - pro or con
don't worry about its makeup?
 
Oscar, no problem. I understand how it looked, perhaps I should have toned the question down a little. I have replied to such questions myself thinking the person posting was of a certain opinion based on how the post was presented. Thanks for the input on the other justices. See ya around.
 
Originally posted by mk86fcc:
Let me preface my remarks by saying I do not have specific references to back this up, but it comes from sources that I normally consider reliable.

It's my understanding that several members of the current court (& Clarence Thomas in particular) are, in fact, anxious to hear a 2nd Amendment case.


Justice's Thomas and Scalia have pubically stated their interpretation is that it is an individual right.

Y'know, lawyer's like to use precedence in cases. Regardless of court precedent, the REAL precedence is that American citizens HAVE kept and borne (is the correct? past tense for "bear") arms for over 250 years. Now, THAT'S precedence!
Click to expand...
 
Joe, you said:

...a SC decision that the 2nd is valid and a right of all free citizens, we will have most of the stupid gun laws striken from the books and the ATF and other LEA's can be freed up do the jobs they were created to do.

Which is EXACTLY why there will NEVER (IMO) be another case on the issue heard in the SC. Ever. Too much money involved, and too much potential for LEA's to lose all that fed money, coupled with the loss of CONTROL of the population. TPTB could NEVER allow that to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top