Quantcast

Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will ever rule in favor of our "Assault Rifles"?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by coloradokevin, Nov 17, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    It is ironic that it is the states mostly doing the restricting. I guess that’s fine with me but if a state wants to raise its own standing army or be a pro 2A safe haven then they need to be equally hands off. Would they be if it came down to that?

    The way I see it, by your reasoning is that the states do still have a right to raise their own army, but what happens if say Kansas doesn’t agree with what the rest of the country wants and they decide to secede from any federal control. I could totally see the US more or less blockading and bullying the state back into their control! Do you see where I am going with this? At that point, does the guard and any weapons that is in the state now belong to Kansas or the feds? Say Kansas ceded back all weapons that belonged to the US and wanted to buy their own. The feds could simply block all routes into the state and essentially keep them from setting up their own military. So, if you look at it like that, what’s the point of the individual state retaining such power if it cannot be effectively used? Obviously, the states on the coast would be a little better off in this example but it could still be done.

    It would be much easier to control and bully a state than it would be an entire nations population. Does that make sense? So, while yes the state could raise its own army, does it really have the power to do so and be on a level playing field with the rest of the US? I mean realistically if you look on it as you have presented it’s almost an empty amendment. But put the control back into the entire citizenship of the nation then it’s not. Make sense?


    I think he does defend his rights that he grants and I think we are seeing a battle unfold as we speak. However, it is also a gift left to the people to defend. It’s kind of like his gift of free will. Yes, he will certainly try and tug and lead you down a certain path but he also gives us the power of free will. So, you can still take your own path right or wrong. Same thing applies here in my mind. While he grants the rights we must also try to manage to keep it much in the same way that we must try and continue to seek him when he calls. As far as I’m concerned, man cannot revoke the rights that God granted. That’s my entire point. Politicians like to play like they can but the way the Constitution is presented they really don’t have the ability to do so. The only reason they have tried to get away with it and have in some cases is because an ignorant base has allowed it. Many politicians have forgot that they serve us, not the other way around.

    PS I don’t think any politicians can be controlled. I believe they can be bought but many seem to flip on a whim, just depends on the day. Don’t think that just because someone has consistently leaned a specific way that they want just one day flip. It happens, especially when money became involved.
     
  2. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,467
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    I was making an argument based on "the plain meaning of the word." Sure, the courts might get it wrong --- even the Heller case is not a really 2A victory. I doubt Kongress will add semiautos to the NFA. Even if they do, original owners won't pay the tax, only register them; that's what happened to machinegun owners in the 1930s.

    I think they're gonna do a lot of posturing for their electorate, if they pass anything it will bog down in the senate. As the power structure stands there, better hope rino senators don't go squishy.
     
  3. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,467
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    The second amendment' mention of "free state" meant the same as "free condition." State was not capitalized.
     
    CoalTrain49 and Texas10mm like this.
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Location:
    Virginia
    I believe the Democrats will pass a gun bill in the House in 2019, as a "marker" for the next election. Then, if they can flip 3 Senate seats (as well as obviously the White House) in 2020, we will see a federal AWB for sure in 2021. That is why this discussion of the Supreme Court is not moot.
     
    CoalTrain49 likes this.
  5. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,467
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Maybe .... the next 2 years will be critical.

    What I would fear more than just a ban would be confiscation. I don't like sounding selfish ..... but I have pretty much what I need.
     
  6. rpenmanparker

    rpenmanparker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    2,456
    Not three Senate seats, 13 Senate seats.
     
  7. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,176
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Protecting the southern border? I guess you could call stringing razor wire and monitoring cameras protecting the border.:D
     
  8. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    The need for a populace to be armed and familiar with the use of their arms, so that they can serve as a militia when it becomes necessary to defend their freedoms, is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed upon by the government. I am very grateful for my Constitutional right to bear arms to defend myself and my state.

    The only point of a government is to preserve the liberties and freedoms of its citizens.
     
  9. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    6,525
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Will they ever rule in a way that 80% of we "gun people" will ever agree is a 'win'?

    Probably not.

    That's equal parts from the fact that the anti legislators are professionals at writing laws so that they cannot be overturned on simple constitutional bases. And, the fact that far too many of "our side" don't understand the above. Which is no slur on their understanding nor education nor inclination. It is that "we" expect Reasonable Person" simplicity from our laws and ordinances. And, our laws and ordinances must needs be more complicated than that.

    The Supreme Court is functionally predicated on the finest nuances in our laws, the minute esoterica. Which can be 'irritating' when we see what are obvious to 'us' injustices.
    As an example, one of the pending cases is one where there is an issue about whether incarcerated aliens can be released at the end of their sentence, or whether DHS/ICE must, instead, take immediate custody of the alien on release. This is a thorny issue as the operators of the jails are responsible to the courts who sentence the criminals, that they serve the directed time. The jailers are not at liberty to extend (nor to decrease) time served at the convenience of DHS/ICE.

    It's deep and complicated, and very much the business of the SC.
     
  10. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,485
    Location:
    WNY
    We are NOT doing religion!
    That will close the thread. Stay on the processes of the Court.
     
  11. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,176
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    That's what happened in the civil war. I'm pretty sure nobody wants that to happen again because it isn't in anyone's best interest. States don't agree with federal policy now on immigration and drug enforcement and lots of other stuff that goes to court.

    You have to remember that when the constitution was written the states had all the money and the military, the fed had neither. Just the reverse now. The fed has stepped in to enforce federal policy recently, happened in Alabama in the 60's.

    So the vision of the people who wrote the BOR didn't really come to pass as planned. I think they would all be horrified at how big and powerful the federal gov't is these days. I don't think they ever had that in mind.

    The problem is the constitution keeps getting in the way of changes that the majority wants. The SC isn't going to rule against the constitution, but congress might just roll on over it like it isn't even there.
     
    SilentStalker likes this.
  12. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,176
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    What country are you living in? :D
     
  13. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,238
    Location:
    Southwestern IL-ANNOY
    That is why we all need to PRAY for RBG to realize that her health is more important and she should RETIRE NOW.
     
  14. rpenmanparker

    rpenmanparker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    2,456
    An unbalanced Supreme Court is the greatest threat to freedom that we face in America. 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and 1 swing justice is a formula which has worked well for us for a long time. We have lost that balance now and are at risk for tyrannical manipulation of our laws. Gun control is not the only important legal issue facing the USA. You can worry only about your guns, but there is real danger of other fundamental rights being lost, rights that would be better protected by liberal justices, not conservative ones. Justice Ginsberg has served this country with honor and dedication. You would be wise to appreciate her better.
     
  15. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,221
    Well, mostly because it wasn't relevant to the point I was highlighting. Regardless, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment describes an individual right to keep and bear arms, not one connected to military service. As such, whether or not I highlighted the word militia was even more irrelevant (reference: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).

    Did you show up to offer an opinion regarding the question I posed at the beginning of the thread, or just to argue about people who you believe are conservatives? I'd kind of like to keep this thread going, so if you could stay on-point here that would be appreciated!

    I never said gun control is the only important issue before the courts, but seeing that we're having this debate on a gun forum where only topics related to guns are allowed, it's the only important topic for this particular discussion.
     
  16. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,999
    Location:
    Virginia
    No, for two reasons: (1) the Senate majority sets the rules at the beginning of each session, including the "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster altogether (as has already been done with court appointments), and (2) certain things can be done under the budget reconciliation procedure, which only requires a bare majority. Gun legislation can take the form of taxes (such as by expanding the scope of the NFA), which would qualify for budget reconciliation.
     
  17. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    I'm not sure what aspect of my post generated your question, but both my country and my state have constitutions which are intended to protect my rights. I do not believe I've misstated the documents.
     
  18. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    He was being sarcastic, making a funny, is in full agreement with you, but also is saying this is not how the country is being run. That’s why he made his question with a smiley face next to it. Yes, the country and states should be ran just like you pointed out, yet they are not.
     
  19. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Did you ever believe that the Supreme Court would ever rule that the 2nd Amendment protected (not granted) an individual right? I've had plenty of people tell me it NEVER would.

    Those who prepare for defeat usually achieve it.
     
    coloradokevin likes this.
  20. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,484
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    And the compliance rate will be what... 1-2%?

    And when the BATFE starts killing people over it?

    Every time an anti-gunner suggests such a thing to me, I recommend that they watch "Michael Collins" and "Defiance" and rethink.
     
  21. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,485
    Location:
    WNY
    I think we have run the course of useful debate if we start to discuss such matters.
    I am loathe to shut this down, but can we get back on the topic of the Court and let other things slide.
     
  22. jamesjames

    jamesjames Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Southern Oregon Coast
    So, without attacking individual Justices for their percieved biases, or the two main opposing viewpoints that make up the Court, is it possible to take an emotionally-charged and intellectually-nuanced question like an AW ban and rule soley on the basis of law and precedent?

    I've personally crossed the Rubicon in coming to guns from a liberal, urban, pacifist background. It took me 30 years of living in rural communities, befriending gunnies who patiently mentored me into shooting sports, and living long enough to mature into a more sophisticated and less knee jerk world view about guns and society. The only way I got here was becoming invested in guns as an owner and an experienced shooter.

    Unlike any other experience or right guaranteed under the Constitution, guns empower the individual with an extreme power and responsibility seen as a threat by the uninitiated citizen. Therefore, how does a Court rule on something they have less than direct experience of when all the can consider is the abstract balance of Constitutional rights vs. the common good?
     
    Texas10mm and SilentStalker like this.
  23. rpenmanparker

    rpenmanparker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    2,456
    Very well said. A well reasoned position.
     
  24. DT Guy

    DT Guy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,439
    I'd contend that freedom of speech, ultimately, is more powerful than freedom to own a gun. There's a reason the Soviet Union used to register typewriters.

    Larry
     
  25. rpenmanparker

    rpenmanparker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    2,456
    Wow! Another excellent position statement.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice