CoRoMo
Member
Home Run pick!
I'm asking myself he same question: "Huh?". My NM relatives have all moved to other states and I have not been there in a long time but I OCed in NM myself many times. Early onset Althsimer's?Huh? New Mexico has been an open carry state as long as I can remember. http://www.opencarry.org/state-info-n-s/new-mexico/
Maddow was even attacking his mother last night. I'm sure the background of all potential nominees was well researched by the fake news prior to last night.
Well, there's certainly the political/philosophical theory that the RKBA is the *best* litmus test there is for determining a person's governing tendencies. Those who would put a gun in another's hand tend to given them free exercise in many other areas, as well. On the contrary, many of those who espouse free speech seem to be among the most restrictive of it and all other freedoms at this time. The ability of the gun itself to drive policy through threat of resistance is a minor point (but a real one)The reality is we need someone who will protect the Constitution as a whole. Not just the 2nd Amendment. Argue all you want that the 2nd is the most important amendment, as it protects our other rights from a tyrannical government. I won't argue against you. But there are many other cases heard that can erode freedoms just as fast as 2A cases. Give me an original textualist anyday over a strictly staunch 2A supporting Justice.
Unlike other areas of the constitution that may be just as important, there aren't literally a dozen cases pending that can determine whether we can go to a church of our choosing, or move to a state we desire, or pass our property to our children, or possess property. Cases just as fundamental to gun rights are stacking up by the bushel.
TCB
The main difference is that they've been attacking gun rights for a longer period of time, attacking religious conviction is much more recent, and they are just getting warmed up. If Hillary, who actually said in so many words that "we" (= she and her fellow members of the superior elite) "have to change longstanding religious beliefs" (in a speech about abortion but don't imagine for a moment it would stop there) had been elected the next step would have been censoring sermons and bowlderizing the Bible, obviously if biology is now ignored in favor of "feelings" it cannot be allowed to say "male and female created He them", much less prohibit "lying with a man as with a woman", and then of course they would proceed to make it illegal for clergy to refuse to perform same-sex weddings.You can't possibly in good conscience equate the restrictions experienced by either religious persons or homosexuals in our nation to the kind of repression experienced by a full third of the population where it concerns guns.
-Shall issue carry permits (denial of civil rights)
-RKBA absolutism (machinegun ban & 'sporting purposes' clauses)
-NFA regulatory overreach (tech branch rulings)
-NFA administrative malfeasance (wait times)
-ITAR regulatory overreach (abusive license fees & oversight)
-Assault weapon bans (arbitrary & capricious laws & enforcement)
-Broad class bans, such as semi-autos or microstamping requirements (denial of civil rights)
-Duty to notify & police searches (fourth/fifth/first amendment violations)
-Stand your ground (personal right to unconditional self defense)
-Background checks (invasion of privacy as well as interference in commerce)
-Safe passage (violation of interstate commerce)
-Possession inside/outside the home (erosion of Heller and its potential expansion)
-Punitive taxation, licensing, training fees (prohibitory tax on a right)
-Blanket bans on heavy metals (prohibitory burden on a right)
-The standard by which the RKBA is to be examined where infringements are concerned (strict scrutiny)
-And I am certain to be forgetting a handful of others
There's simply a ton of facets to 'the gun issue,' and each of them has a case or two log-jammed against either a district or the supreme court at this time. Something's gotta give. It's worth remembering that Heller came about as DC sought to deal a death-blow to the RKBA, by banning outright all firearms most suitable for self-defense. That was a bridge too far for the court, but only barely. Scalia knew this, and therefore he (and Thomas I would imagine) endeavored to keep less severe cases of infringement from coming before the court, where they were sure to be upheld by Kennedy. This stalling tactic kept bad precedent off the books, but also allowed regions of the US to erode or ignore outright the Heller ruling's implications.
Considering that each of these facets carry implications far beyond firearms issues (e.g. regulatory overreach via Chevron Deference) I would argue that the neglect of this area of law is one of if not the primary reason for so much uncertainty about the future of our system of government. If it can be settled for the time being, everyone's way forward in this country becomes a lot clearer. For the last several decades, the court's focus has been on staking out new freedoms, and new authorities, and striking out into new areas of law, all the while allowing the very basis established in our founding documents to decay.
TCB
That, at least, is why I would have liked to have seen a judge with more RKBA bonafides.
You can't possibly in good conscience equate the restrictions experienced by either religious persons or homosexuals in our nation to the kind of repression experienced by a full third of the population where it concerns guns.
TCB
But they aren't, so your imposition is mostly hypothetical. However, a full third of Americans cannot access concealed carry or the most effective weaponry, right now.I would strongly disagree. In fact, the US was founded largely to avoid having governments impose religious rules. The 1st Amendment was first for a reason . . .
And if ~10% of the population is prevented from marrying (or being in the military, or having consensual sex in private, etc.) that is a pretty significant imposition.
Maybe if they are the two who wrote Peruta...I guess it goes with out saying.....only if they are in our favor.
As in, not a pick from the 9thCA.
Both have been attacked plenty; in fact, religious liberty is an even older issue than gun control, going back past the founding. The old solution was to let each state favor, but not mandate, a faith, and let the people congregate accordingly. That's still the case, only one of the faiths is now the worship of The State, which by definition cannot play nice with the competition, politically. Again, I'll say most of your (valid) concerns are still theoretical; they warrant close watch, but gun issues in the here & now are a more pressing concern.The main difference is that they've been attacking gun rights for a longer period of time, attacking religious conviction is much more recent, and they are just getting warmed up. If Hillary, who actually said in so many words that "we" (= she and her fellow members of the superior elite) "have to change longstanding religious beliefs" (in a speech about abortion but don't imagine for a moment it would stop there) had been elected the next step would have been censoring sermons and bowlderizing the Bible, obviously if biology is now ignored in favor of "feelings" it cannot be allowed to say "male and female created He them", much less prohibit "lying with a man as with a woman", and then of course they would proceed to make it illegal for clergy to refuse to perform same-sex weddings.
But that won't stop them from trying.He's a great pick because no one has dirt on him. The media cant savagely attack him like they have everyone else.