Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Chief Justice Abdicates on Gun Rights

Keep in mind that GW Bush was ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN and the people he appointed were part of the country club set. They all think the Constitution shouldn't apply to the peasantry.
GW Bush was a terrible President, which is why the GOP peed away its majority in 2004-2008. Nice guy but terrible president, who took too much advice from terrible people.

There was a reason the Founders wanted to get away from being ruled by Royalty.

I wish they had included an Amendment to the Constitution that if a family member (even a fuggin cousin, mother's cousin, grandpa's cousin) had served in an elected position at any time in the past 75 years, you are not eligible to run for office.

Fugg term limits, we really need to stop electing from the ranks of "the Elite".

Can you tell how I feel about our governments (Local, State, and Fed) being run by the likes of the Bushes, Murkowskis, Kennedys, Browns, Babbits, etc, etc etc.

The Government of the US of A ain't some fuggin "Smith and Sons" plumbing company.

Geno

I’m believing that theory more and more as events unfold.

The fact that politics is even mentioned by the justices is all the evidence needed to prove how political the one branch of government, a branch of government that is supposed to be completely APOLITICAL, has become.

I can’t help but hope, for all of our sake, that RBG retires ASAP!

Abundantly clear a while back

The little shrub had 8 full years of mistakes that cost many lives and trillions of dollars.

I agree with you, Geno, but many here are advocating for a Trumpian succession over the next 1/2+ century. You should add Clintons to your list. We don't need any more of them either.

Meanwhile, onward with King Donald the (orange) Duck.

This attitude drives me up the wall. Your rights are your rights. The State does not confer rights, has no jurisdiction to infringe your rights, and certainly does not restore your rights via the mumbling of some black robed crooks. Your rights are those things you are willing to fight for, and nothing more. If you have nothing you are willing to fight and die for, then you have no rights, you only have the privileges some man in a robe or a suit says you can possess, which makes you a serf, or a slave.

If the State wishes to acknowledge my rights, well and good. I have no problem with that. However, if they wish to take my rights, they can pound sand, and we can fight over it if they wish. Maybe I will die defending my rights. No problem. Once I am dead, I have no more need of them. But they don’t come free, for me or the thugs they send to get them. I am good with that.

OGW, I hope you do not have to die defending your rights. There is a system in place to protect those rights under the constitution. It might become necessary to die for our rights but only after all other options have been exhausted. At this point in my life prison and the threat of dying for my rights have become less of a deterent.

New conference on Friday.

Monday could be interesting:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/...endment-cases-set-for-friday-conference/

After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in a challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban last summer, a majority on the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims are moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in concluding that the case should go back to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun rights rulings, in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh suggested, the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The court’s electronic docket reveals that Kavanaugh’s suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.

Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional. A full list of the 10 cases distributed for Friday’s conference, as well as a brief description of the question presented in each one, follows the jump.

We expect orders from Friday’s conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.

Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.

Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.

Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.

Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

My condolences, Geno.

They have pics of him fuuucking Hillary

Read Denton's post on the subject in a "no-kook zone"...

I don't consider Roberts a man.

Did anybody really expect anything different from Roberts?

why do we have democRAT Senators threatening the Supreme Court Justices?

Because they think they've arrived at a place and time where they can.

Given the preponderance of Rinos, I'd be hard-pressed to say they were mistaken.

I don't know, I worked in NYC for 27 years, I had a boss who lived in Queens and hunted upstate. He showed me an annual gun reporting form NYC where he had to list make, model, caliber and serial number of every gun he owned and submit a fee! Worst of all, his wife or significant other had to "sign off" on allowing the guns in the house! Pretty crazy, isn't this registration?

Yes, the whole state registers all handguns with the police, and treats possession of unregistered handguns like narcotics possession. Been that way for as long as I've been alive, and before, in NY State. NYC even does that for long guns.

I should have been clearer, will the registration and getting permission from your spouse to have guns in the house go away?

Eye Bleach..!!

That would be worse than the video that they obviously have of him and a goat.

He is definitely looking over his shoulder when he writes opinions.