http://washingtonexaminer.com/anton...heading-to-supreme-court/article/2521413

excellent

Yes indeed.

And turning an Obama appointee into a deer hunter... That's pretty cool.

Scalia's the man.

Interesting I wonder why she would even go? She dose not strike me as the type but maybe she developed a taste for venison. We shall see.

It's good to see some people with common sense be pro-active for our cause. I thought Kagen was a lost cause.

Is he still the man if he rules that high cap clips are able to be restricted? Or if we don't "need" AR's?

We all thought Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional too.

I'm a lawyer. My wife is a lawyer. Mother and father in law are lawyers. Know lots of lawyers. Not a single one thought that Obama care would be ruled unconstitutional. Not one.

The issues will need to be clarified, but all generally agree the 2nd amendment is safe.

.
Damn, man, I'm sorry to hear you come from such a family of degenerates! At least you didn't claim any cops in that tribe! Do you plan to grow into lying, crooked politicians soon?

A dabbling Fudd does not a gun-rights advocate make.

Kagan owes a lot of people for her position. I doubt the Marxist pig misjudged her ideology.

I don't think zero ever thought she would go hunting with Scalia, or hunting at all. That does not mean she is pro 2nd.

Roberts can write it into a tax. That'll fix it.

Nothing like positive thoughts

We're talking Scalia not ron paul.

You're right. Ron Paul had the single best pro-gun voting record of anybody in Congress over how many years of service? I don't know how many pro-gun votes cast that is, but it probably trumps Heller and a couple of others.

I just hope Scalia is as good as you think and that the House is as good as SteveNo thinks. As Scalia says, "we'll see".

Did that douche ever even own a gun, much less shoot one?

I wouldn't trust that bunch as far as I can through them, especially with that piece of crap, traitor to the republic, Roberts in there.

I don't know and don't really care. I'll take "that douche" over folks like Joe Biden who own guns but think that you shouldn't. If I'd lived in Paul's district I wouldn't have been electing him because he had an NRA card in his wallet or a bunch of guns in his safe. I'd be electing him because he was a proven defender of my right to keep and bear arms.

Lots of people talk the talk, but he walked the walk. What is McCain's and Romney's record on gun control? How many guns do they own?

I could see paul defending firearms except for personal defense; he's proven he's against that..live by the gun die by the gun. The guys a basket case.

You're not very bright, are you?

You're a paul licker; he doesn't want anyone killed by anyone for any reason, right?

If the answer is no, does that change his voting record?

I don't think it matters if he owns zero or a thousand, that's a completely different subject.

Many do not own guns but are 100% pro 2A. Others who own and carry daily would take ours away in a heartbeat.

Owning or not proves nothing.

100% pro 2A voting record. Without fail. The best in the business...
of all those bastards.

How pro gun can that fossil be with a statement like live by the gun die by the gun? I know you guys light candles and pay him homage, but your blinded by love

You can't argue with his voting record on guns. None have a more 100% consistent voting record for as long a period. Case closed.

I'd haul azz too if he was my hero

I'm with kecatt, Roberts is the guy I'd be worried about! Kagen has already shown which way she will vote. Her affirming the right for a hunter to kill a deer is a lot different than the AR bans. Remember, her hunting buddy Scalia already stated "there are limits".

What Kagan HAS demonstrated is a somewhat more open minded approach than the other libs on the Court. Keep in mind that she just got finished with tearing Sotomayor a new bunghole.

GOOD POST.

While I do not worship at the altar of Ron Paul I do live in his former district. I was one of those who consistently reelected him to congress and am proud of that. Was he perfect? Of course not, but he was much better than most.

frankly, I don't see a good outcome with a 'once and for all' decision.
Sometimes it's best to just sleeping dogs lie. I don't trust Scalia, or any other individual, nor any group of elites, such as the Supreme Court, anymore.

The pro Obamacare decision sure was a bad omen for anything that will follow.

no chit! I believe conservatives are grasping at straws, and have totally false expectations of what is coming down the pike. The Court, along with all of the DC establishment, has show itself to be a sell out.

Don't let the smoke get in your eyes or spend to long in the house of mirrors.

Not sure if the Obamacare decision is the right case to use to read how the court may rule. Heller seems more appropriate. Also of note while Scalia did say there were limits to how far 2A goes he did set that bar pretty high (shoulder fired missiles).

If it gets clarified, at least we will know where we stand. We can regroup after that and move ahead.

Passing the bar exam counts for little here at the campfire.

Judge Hawkeye will have to approve you.

Are you a neocon?

....Does the possibility exit that she is playing Scalia. As in: Lets get it on the bench and then close the door on them.



Been around more than one Deer hunter I don't trust.

Can't understand all the high fives.

This is the same bunch of azzhats that ruled Obamacare constitutional- as a [bleep] tax no less....which the administration denied it was.

Pardon me for not standing on my chair and cheering for the Supreme Court...

Thank you.

Politics has elevated corruption to the point-we have allowed it to happen-the SC in no longer immune and regroup is a not the best of choices.

A one & done deal could easily go either way at this point.

The SCOTUS is more politicized at this point than ever before; I simply cannot imagine any one of the liberal 4 ever going right on anything, but given Roberts abdication on ObamaCare, there are for sure 2 of the typically right fence sitters that are now more unknowns than ever before.

MM

Not me.
I disagree with him on many points, just not as many points as the scum either of the two heads of the same snake nozzles of the same douche parades in front of us.

On top of that, some of the points I agree with RPee my agreement is for different reason(s) than he's promoting.

There's a few points he's spot on, though.

He's definitely right nuke the fed reserve act and stay away and allow the mid east muslims kill each other off in peace.
Exterminate them here but the rest of the world? Who shives a git. Deal with it yourselves.

Not gonna be much moving ahead if it goes badly in the wrong direction...............

MM

So............. you think the Executive Branch should get to decide what is, and isn't, a tax?

THAT would give Obama a blank check with regard to restrictions on the 2A.

I hate to see a flaming lib get used to killing.

Another swing and a miss...

You go back and show everyone where I said that.

Don't make assumptions, try to comprehend what is written.

What's his beef with shoulder fired missles?

Hell, it's not like we'll be giving them to small children for birthday.
We need 'em for prairie dogs.

That's the point. It IS a TAX. Just because Obama says it's not doesn't make it so. If you read the majority opinion you will find that what Roberts did was actually pretty smart. He was able to get the liberal wing of the court to restrict congressional power under the commerce clause. LINK

You're asking a lot from old Cur.

I say we already know where we stand.
We've known for a couple hundred years.

We don't need to regroup and move ahead. We need to back up.
The very first bite taken from "shall NOT be infringed" should have resulted in a hangman's noose.

It's never too late to say I'm sorry.
I was wrong.
I'm fully repentant.
From here on out this is how it will be done.

JM don't even comprehend what he writes.

Don't expect him to understand what someone else writes.

Maybe his ex-wife was awarded the part of his brain that's used for critical thinking.

It was smart all right.

When this healthcare fiasco finally gets fully implemented, come back here and tell everyone how smart Roberts was...

Tell the small business owners I know how smart he is.

You might want to go get your GED form North Texas White Trash High before you talk about someone else's comprehension skills.

Just sayin'.

Laws can be changed by electing better representatives. Supreme Court precedent is another matter. Just because it is a bad law sold with lies doesn't make it unconstitutional.

TRH........... it's really NOT difficult for most folks.

I suggest you start with something easy for us ordinary folks , but challenging for you.

Walk and chew gum at the same time.

Why did you mention that Obama claimed it was NOT a tax if you think THAT should have no bearing on Robert's decision?

It's a simple question.

Cur is just mad because I got my GED before he did.

K, I understand your point about a law being bad, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

This court has ruled in an activist manner, Obamacare could have been struck down using several good arguments, but Roberts chose to uphold the law based on the right of congress to levy taxes.

That was left field schit for sure.

My point being, that if SCOTUS has the desire to change or modify current laws, they most certainly will find a legal leg to stand on in order to accomplish it.

IMHO, this is the worst court we've had in some time and certainly not one I'm willing to throw the 2nd amendment in and see what come out the other side.

I see your point but neocon 'r not doesn't really matter.

The problem with lawyers, judges (glorified lawyers), courts (places of worship services) and politicians is they have bar cards and those proudly displayed little cards signifying membership to the elite little club take precedence over anything and everything.

A certain amount of go with the flow is required to stay "in the business". Stray too far from the current tide, whether coming in or going out matters not, and you risk shame of demotion to a hinder pew like paralegal or excommunicated
all together.

It's a cut throat business.
Their pirate's code is more like guidelines than actual rules.
Parlays are held in secret.

The world of legalities is a dangerous one in which to dwell. They like blood and don't care who bleeds it. The nature of sharks and rattlesnakes, the temperature of their blood, the cold dark soulless look in their eyes, the scheming little gears turning inside their warped little minds... it all adds up to one thing and one only, the family den sight must survive. Individuals within the family are friend, foe, or food, on a minute by minute basis.

That deseves a simple answer.

-Because the thing was misrepresented from start to finish by the White House and Democratic leaders.

-To rule it constitutional based soley on the Congress' right to impose taxes, ignoring the argument that it restricts a persons freedom of choice, demonstrates to me that the Court was looking for a way to pass the President's plan.

What makes you think that exposing the 2nd amendment to this court won't possibly lead to a compromise where freedoms are lost.

It's a simple question.

That's the point. It IS a TAX. Just because Obama says it's not doesn't make it so. If you read the majority opinion you will find that what Roberts did was actually pretty smart. He was able to get the liberal wing of the court to restrict congressional power under the commerce clause. LINK
=============

Precisely. Many will see the wisdom behind all that Roberts accomplished with his ruling only as time passes and the problems facing this administration because of Robert's ruling actually kick into play.

By the end of this year or the 1st quarter of 2014, Roberts is going to become a lot brighter to many folks.

so anything the govt wants to make you do could be justified as constitutional by some manner. The auto industry is involved in interstate commerce, so I guess it's ok for .gov to force you to buy a GMC yearly.

Maybe, but I will wait to see how he votes the next time a 2a case comes up.

I just don't see it. I've got several friends with small businesses that are really going to be strapped implementing Obamacare.

In my view, what Roberts did was pull the fuse out of one stick of dynamite in a wagon carrying 3 tons of the stuff.

Crafty? maybe, but that's going to be small comfort for my firends bottom line when they start having to pony up or pay the fines on a bad plan that Mr. Roberts helped send their way...

Legal and Just don't always walk hand in hand.

Thus speaks the king of compromise.

Back to the subject at hand,

The undeniable fact of what happened in that court with Obamacare is more than enough reason for us not to want them to get their hands on the 2A in any meaningful way.

Do you guys really trust that court to uphold our freedoms regarding the 2nd amendment when they have cow-towed to this administrations wishes in the past?

Do you believe that there will not be some sort of restrictions placed on gun ownership with the administration breathing down their necks and the media playing up every kid that's been killed with a firearm over the last 100 years?


I guess ya'll have a little more faith in SCOTUS than I do...

It's way above your skill-set,lightweight.

Your ability to think outside a box is on the same sub-par level as your analogy epic fails.

===============

Heller and McDonald were meaningful ways,imo.

Nice that they did the right thing, but that's no guarantee of future protection IMO.

So New York should just live with the SAFE Act??

Those of us in 10th Circuit should be happy with the latest CCW ruling???

Maybe we should wait until O gets to replace another of the conservative Justices and then bring a case??

This really is the best chance in my lifetime of settling the issue in a favorable manner. Understand that the worst that could happen is an unconstitutional law would stand.

SCOTUS does not make new laws just knocks them down.

Our country's very survival depends on his continued leadership and good judgement. IMO, he's as historically significant as ANY of the founding fathers of this great country....

They make law (not prescribed by the Constitution), every time the Congress doesn't...

Does Roe v. Wade ring any bells?

Also, "Once and for all" and a Court ruling just don't belong in the same sentence....

This is the crux of it. SCOTUS is going to be making some key 2A rulings that are going to shape the landscape forever.

If we are lucky we can have the court as it stands now make them or we can wait until Scalia is replaced by a another Sotomyer and then make the rulings.

Better we get what we can, now, set in decision.

Frankly if the court could invalidate the NYS law and make mention of several of the key issues in the law, and then find a case that applies full faityh and credit to carry. we would have garnered a lot.

The shifting demographics of the country will insure a more liberal court in the future and those same demographics are going to make congress worse as well.

This.

Once the SC really lays out the second all the garbage will be over and we will have our rights.

Are you nuts? Dude, you are spot-on in many respects on here. I don't know if it's blind hatred on your part for Paul or what, but you need to educate yourself.

I was forced to vote for Romney in the last election but on guns alone, between Romney and Paul, it is a no-brainer. I go with objectivity over subjectivity most of the time and if you put Paul's actual record up over Romney's, Paul wins hands-down, just as he would against anybody you put him up against in the House. If you even compare Paul's RECORD to Romney's rhetoric, Paul wins. And IMO a record trumps what somebody says they'll do, most of the time.

Hear-hear. When you stop believing that you have certain inalienable rights and start believing that everything begins and ends with man, you have just admitted that somebody else can take your abilities away with their opinion through a "vote". If my neighbors want my guns they can come and get them.

The farther the world spins the more complicated things get and the more us common folk need lawyers to tell us what other lawyers said when they made the laws they rule us with. It's a very fine line between that and the boot my ancestors managed to pull their necks out from under when they sailed over to Jamestown.

Re: Kagen, just look how she voted in Heller and McDonald and that will give you an idea on what she thinks!

Kagan wasn't on the Supreme Court for Heller. MacDonald is a Circuit Court case she couldn't vote on.

The Voting Rights case is what is on the table now, and if the SCOTUS sends it packing we will be getting to the root of the current problem. we are being denied representative government and having our votes value compromised.

The 2nd Amendment issues are going to get resolved, and we can be thankful our enemies are making so many bad laws so we can have standing in the courts.

Well Roe v Wade was not a law but a decision that states could not ban abortion, in other words Roe v Wade knocked down laws banning abortion. Kind of the same type of thing only we want the states and Feds to stop making laws that ban guns or otherwise restrict our rights under the 2nd.

Don�t see any states banning abortions. That is a good example of �once and for all�. Personally I am not a big fan of abortion but Roe v Wade it is a good example of how SCOTUS works in our government.



Kagen was not on the court for either of those decisions. She replaced Stevens and while I have absolutely no faith she would rule with the conservatives it is at least interesting she would go hunting here in Wyoming with Scalia. Stevens was vehemently anti gun and wrote the dissenting opinions in both the Heller and McDonald cases.

We are better off with Stevens gone.



I think he is referring to the 2010 McDonald v Chicago case.

It would be nice to turn one of theirs though. Oh how I would laugh. Smiling right now just thinking about it. Almost giggling like Anderson Cooper after a little poot.

It will only be settled if they judge by what the 2nd Amendment says and not by what they want it to say.

Scalia has taken Kagan to the target range a couple of times.

I still do not trust the Supreme court to get it right, and that is a hell of a thing to have to say. miles

Not getting my hopes up. She does seem like less of an ideologue than Sotomayor though. But that's a pretty high bar.

Romney voted for the first gun ban. These Rhino's need to go. They only need to say one thing and mean it to get my vote. "I'm going in to gut the federal government". Big government is a threat to all free men!

He is in the news a lot right now like he is gearing up for the next Presidential election. Hope not because there is better out there and if he is running they may not. miles

This is a thread hijack, please excuse me.

RISJR could you explain in a little more detail what you mean here. Use words an Ozark hillbilly can grasp, my reading of legal language ain't so good.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scalia-state-union-childish-spectable-article-1.1262905

Yeah......but she always comes back.

that must make Scalia a bad shot

I can't find anything in print about Scalia saying "Of the two, I took the cute one shooting"......

I beg to differ. He's laid low post election 'cept one interview with Fox, which airs in a few days I think. I think he'll make it clear when the Fox interview airs that he is done with national office seeking. He had his chance and now its time for others. Hope he lays the wood to Obama in his interview though. Plenty to criticize for sure.

Jordan

Well, John, the 2A has already been exposed to this court, and we came out better than I thought we would as far as them deciding the the case that was before them. They seem to have set the bar fairly high for the gov't when the level of scrutiny is determined in future lawsuits.

But,they sure could desert us. No question about that.

Having a more conservative court in the future is not very likely, I'm afraid. I think we are better off with the current court.

It's a crap shoot.

I don't think so. They'll just remodel all their gun control schemes after 0bamacare & the NFA.

$50,000 tax on 11+ round magazines anyone? How about $250,000 property tax on that AR in your closet?

The Constitution provides in the Origination Clause that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore with the current make up of the House this is highly unlikely. There are also some questions about the constitutionality of Obamacare on these grounds.

I have been hearing lots of talk of him and Condelesa Rice for the Vice President on the radio lately. Not Romney doing the talking but others talking about him. miles

Sounds like Scalia and Kagen are doing more than hunting?

Well, Jr., that's a realllllly big stretch, but I hope you are right, but I won't bet on it.

Roberts could have just done it the sure & easy way & it would have been over & done........had he done that, he would have been smart for sure & shown us where he stands.

Why all the circumferential methodology when he could have taken the direct route?

MM

You'll see. Just you wait.

The fact is he said it - limits - and therefor left the door open for an interpretation that may not bode well for the pro-gun crowd.

If citizens were allowed to legally own missiles, tanks, and such,do you know WHO would have their own private army?

Soros and Bloomberg for atarters.

People who want the 2A to mean "no limits" really need to think it through.

The way I jnderstand it. The word "bear". Carries alot of weight in regards what those limitations are. Everything I have read has upheld the individual ownership of weapons that can be carried in your hands. Maybe Bob can clarify that a bit?

Yea,,, how many of that brilliant crew of yours predicted it would ruled constitutional as a "TAX"?

Wait,,, don't tell me. "Not one".

[bleep] lawyers,,, you're all full of chit.

Good point.

I am pretty happy with the Status Quo as it applies to me here in Wyoming. Add National Reciprocity that would allow me no hassles while traveling to less progressive states and things would be pretty good.

SCOTUS puts the hammer to NY�s Safe Act and that dumb 10th Circuit CCW ruling and I would be a happy camper. I am not too worried about the NFA as full auto is for fan bois.

Based on my personal finances I figure I won�t be trying to acquire any MANPADs so if SCOTUS thinks MANPADs are off limits that is A OK.

Keep and BEAR arms is what the 2nd says.

I was thinking of a little more radical "regrouping" than what you are reading into it. Sort of a "back to the future" kind of thing. As in, move ahead without them.