Quantcast

President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett as his 3rd SCOTUS judge

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Sep 26, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,602
    How does she stand on the 2nd Amendment?

    Also, strange that the only US Supreme Court Justice who was known by her 3 initials RGB (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) is replaced by another judge who is also known by her 3 initials ACB (Amy Coney Barrett), right?
     
    magyars4 likes this.
  2. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    12,572
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    Keep it 2A related and 2A only or it will be locked.
     
    Craig_VA likes this.
  3. redneck2

    redneck2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    15,809
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    Supposedly she is most strongly 2A.

    This appears to be a very blessed day for the U.S.A.
     
    Olon, Dunross, BlueHeelerFl and 2 others like this.
  4. Lycidas Janwor

    Lycidas Janwor Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    711
    Location:
    Basket of Deplorables
    I don't know what ACB's particular views are on the 2A but I'm glad Trump has nominated her and I hope the senate confirms her ASAP
     
    Darkhorse likes this.
  5. daniel craig

    daniel craig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,057
    Unfortunately not much is known about her stance on the second amendment so if this were a voting for him my vote would be to lock this thread
     
  6. redneck2

    redneck2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    15,809
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    Well, supposedly she is in the same camp as Scalia. Good thing
     
  7. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,917
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The "gun press" keeps finding promising citations in her record as a judge.
    Appears to identify as a originalist, which is good.
    Has stated in public that the Constitution should be used as a measure, and not public opinion, emotion, or overseas laws. Which seems a good start.
    To the above, IIRC, she clerked for Scalia
     
  8. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,195
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    She is on record as being against stripping non-violent felons of their gun rights.
     
  9. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Southwestern IL-ANNOY
    She clerked for Scalia many years ago. Some radio station had a program running this afternoon discussing her nomination. They pointed out that, as she went through the vetting process not too long ago for her current appointment on the 7th Circuit (in Chicago), she knows what to expect and will likely be just repeating what she has already said.
    Let's wish her well.
     
  10. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,602

    I'm all for that. Never understood how a gross misdemeanor or felony DUI should stop someone being able to own a firearm.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
    mdauben, Darkhorse, Cannibul and 2 others like this.
  11. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
  12. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,148
    Location:
    Back on Puget Sound
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ling-personal-story/ar-BB19gSRe?ocid=msedgdhpFrom a news article:

    Still, she has demonstrated her conservative bona fides on Second Amendment gun rights, immigration and abortion.

    Last year, she dissented alone when a 7th Circuit panel majority rejected a Second Amendment challenge from a man found guilty of felony mail fraud and prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.

    "History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," she wrote in Kanter v. Barr, applying an originalist approach that looked to the 18th-century intentions. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons."

    Barrett concluded, "Holding that the ban is constitutional ... does not put the government through its paces, but instead treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right."
     
    kcofohio, Darkhorse, Hartkopf and 4 others like this.
  13. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,602

    So if this case made it's way to the US Supreme Court would she have to recuse herself?
     
  14. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Well, I'll leave it to the legal eagles, who I am sure will chime in shortly, but it would make no sense to me that once a judge ruled on a case they could not rule on it again. New evidence, etc. Theoretically, they are not being partisan in their position as judge.
     
  15. Frulk

    Frulk Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    481
    When you combine the following... she’s considered an originalist when it comes to her view of the constitution... she clerked for Scalia and just stated today she identifies with his ideology... she sided with and supported a citizens second amendment rights in a dissenting opinion in the one case she has on record in regards to gun rights.....I’m cautiously optimistic that today was a win for American gun owners.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  16. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,195
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Appeals are typically a challenge to the legal/constitutional grounds of a decision, not evidentiary grounds. So to have the same judge hear an appeal of the same case they once decided on, would defeat the purpose of the appeal (to have different judge/judges weigh the case).
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  17. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,602

    True but since she's on a new court it has entirely new judges which definitely alter the outcome, right?
     
  18. DustyGmt

    DustyGmt Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2016
    Messages:
    911
    Location:
    Green Mountains Vermont
    I think restoring the rights of nonviolent offenders would be a huge step forward. I know alot of people who've made bad choices that are actually good people and dont believe that they should be forever stripped of a fundamental right. I have a friend who got into a brawl as a teen and the prosecutor hinged her case on the fact he was wearing steel toe work boots. He can never own a gun. I'm sure there are tons of cases like that, guy yelling at his girlfriend, one heated exchange away from a domestic barring you from ever owning a gun.

    When did all this stuff get passed through the legislature anyway, it seems highly unconstitutional on its face.....
     
  19. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,912
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    A judge who participated in a case in a lower court would recuse herself from an appeal, as she would wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety and would not be a fair and impartial judge in a matter she had heard previously.
     
  20. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,777
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    SharpDog: :cool:. You're a cool guy and, among other people, provide links which might not have been noticed by some of us.

    Thanks for the link to the Ammoland article about Judge Barrett's record on Second Amendment issues.
    I sent that link to three people.

    This will provide more "light at the end of the tunnel", and this so-called "tunnel" for patriotic Americans, over the next seven-eight or more weeks could become very long and the darkest I've ever witnessed (as an adult), in a general sense.
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  21. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,602

    Totally agree that losing your 2nd Amendment rights for life over a misdemeanor, verbal domestic is ridiculous.
     
    Cannibul likes this.
  22. mmb617

    mmb617 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2020
    Messages:
    177
    Location:
    Altoona, PA
    Everything I've read indicates that she's on our side of the 2nd Amendment interpretation. She seems to believe the Constitution means exactly what it says and doesn't need it's meaning updated.
     
    Shanghai McCoy likes this.
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,384
    Location:
    Virginia
    Yes. Senate approval of the nomination is a foregone conclusion, which means we would have 5 solid pro-2A votes on the Court. But, we don't know what might develop next year (expansion of the Court's membership or limitation of the Court's jurisdiction). Therefore, the watchword has to be, "Strike while the iron is hot." The critical cases should be in the pipeline already. (Once decided, they are likely to remain binding precedents even if the Court makeup changes.)
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
  24. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,450
    Well, let's see...hmmm.if you have such a problem with alcohol that you can't safely operate a vehicle (which is every bit as deadly as a firearm) hmmmm...why should you be allowed to have a firearm?
     
    daniel craig likes this.
  25. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,450
    Asking a judge to recuse him or herself is a tall glass to fill That jurist would, in essence, be saying, I am not able to put personal issues aside and deal with this case on its own merits. That's not a person who is well suited to being a judge in the first place. Lacking demonstrably self-dealing or conflict of interest issues, I can't see any judge, at any level, recusing him or herself from a case.
     
    daniel craig likes this.
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