GlockTalk Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is confirmed by the senate, it'll be a 6-3 leaning hard right in the SC.

I feel alot of things MIGHT just change. For the better. Including how much more secure gun rights are. For a GENERATION. This cannot be understated.

How about an open discussion on what you hope to see change, and what your thoughts are on the 2a strength from here on out if she gets confirmed.

Thanks in advance for you thoughts and comments.
 

·
Southern Backwater Mafia & President-Elect
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
As long as we are whistling in the dark and wishing I would add the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
I would like to see them (SCOTUS) follow the CONSTITUTION to the T! Imagine if our courts, police, and citizens just followed the CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS! Nice dream..


DROBIAZG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,107 Posts
Is confirmed by the senate, it'll be a 6-3 leaning hard right in the SC.

I feel alot of things MIGHT just change. For the better. Including how much more secure gun rights are. For a GENERATION. This cannot be understated.

How about an open discussion on what you hope to see change, and what your thoughts are on the 2a strength from here on out if she gets confirmed.

Thanks in advance for you thoughts and comments.
Since they refuse to just vote and do this and are WILLINGLY GIVING THE DEMS YET ANOTHER SHOT TO TEAR UP A CANDIDATES LIFE like with Cavanaugh...if they dont get this through I hope each and every Republican LOSES if that happens....

Why you may ask? because if they cant just push this through with the majority..I they are dead to me as in I do t think they can do anything and hope they ALL lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
I don't see the NFA changing much anytime soon BUT I do see a couple ways Suppressors could end up on a normal 4473.
That alone would tickle me.

Sent from my Stupid Phone
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
63,378 Posts
It is a good sign that the left-wing nuts are already attacking her for being pro-gun. Of course, the decision they are screeching about isn't even pro-gun, it just says that the blanket bar on gun ownership for felons is unconstitutional, but the constitutional version would be "both broader and narrower." She says they can bar rights like voting and holding office based on "civic virtue" so barring them for felons may be legal, but gun rights can only be barred based on dangerousness.

Fact Check: ‘Amy Coney Barrett Wants Felons to Have Guns, But Not Votes’
 

·
Making America great again!
Joined
·
16,201 Posts
First, it would be a 5-4 conservative court. Roberts might lean right sometimes, but I think he’s lacking core conservative principles.

Most importantly, let’s define what it means to be a “conservative” justice. To me, this means following the Constitution. Our constitution is the foundation, the bedrock on which our country rests. If you can’t commit to that, you have no principles, no core, no compass that can guide your decisions.

If you’re a “liberal” justice, this means that you think all law is malleable. It is subject to current events, current thinking of what law should be. It’s a perverse idea, introduced (IMHO) by Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Constitution is an historical relic, or at best guidance to justices who make law. (Sotamayer said the 11th Circuit Court is where law is made)

I’m just tired of everything being framed “liberal” or “conservative”. Either you believe the Constitution and the rule of law, or you don’t.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
First, it would be a 5-4 conservative court. Roberts might lean right sometimes, but I think he’s lacking core conservative principles.

Most importantly, let’s define what it means to be a “conservative” justice. To me, this means following the Constitution. Our constitution is the foundation, the bedrock on which our country rests. If you can’t commit to that, you have no principles, no core, no compass that can guide your decisions.

If you’re a “liberal” justice, this means that you think all law is malleable. It is subject to current events, current thinking of what law should be. It’s a perverse idea, introduced (IMHO) by Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Constitution is an historical relic, or at best guidance to justices who make law. (Sotamayer said the 11th Circuit Court is where law is made)

I’m just tired of everything being framed “liberal” or “conservative”. Either you believe the Constitution and the rule of law, or you don’t.
I did say 6-3. My bad.
 

·
Scottish Member
Joined
·
11,201 Posts
As long as we are whistling in the dark and wishing I would add the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA)
With the exception of the Hughes Amendment, the FOPA was good, really good, for firearm freedom in the US. The Hughes Amendment was added to FOPA under some very sketchy procedures.

I'd be pleased to get the Hughes Amendment repealed to allow post May 1986 fully automatic firearms to be registered by individuals/trusts as Title II firearms; and have silencers/gun mufflers "moved" from Title II to Title I.

Philosophically (at least mine, by 2A), there shouldn't be restrictions of firearms as described in Title II; but I don't see FA's being sold like Title I firearms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
With the exception of the Hughes Amendment, the FOPA was good, really good, for firearm freedom in the US. The Hughes Amendment was added to FOPA under some very sketchy procedures.

I'd be pleased to get the Hughes Amendment repealed to allow post May 1986 fully automatic firearms to be registered by individuals/trusts as Title II firearms; and have silencers/gun mufflers "moved" from Title II to Title I.

Philosophically (at least mine, by 2A), there shouldn't be restrictions of firearms as described in Title II; but I don't see FA's being sold like Title I firearms.

My interpretation of shall not be infringed means to me, full autos ordered through a catalog, in the mail, no questions asked. You pay, they ship, end of story. Government none the wiser
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
I don't think there has ever been a true conservative in the SCOTUS, and it's not going to start now.
 

·
Southern Backwater Mafia & President-Elect
Joined
·
6,251 Posts
With the exception of the Hughes Amendment, the FOPA was good, really good, for firearm freedom in the US. The Hughes Amendment was added to FOPA under some very sketchy procedures.

I'd be pleased to get the Hughes Amendment repealed to allow post May 1986 fully automatic firearms to be registered by individuals/trusts as Title II firearms; and have silencers/gun mufflers "moved" from Title II to Title I.

Philosophically (at least mine, by 2A), there shouldn't be restrictions of firearms as described in Title II; but I don't see FA's being sold like Title I firearms.
I stand corrected, the Hughes amendment is what I meant in referring to FOPA
 

·
Scottish Member
Joined
·
11,201 Posts
My interpretation of shall not be infringed means to me, full autos ordered through a catalog, in the mail, no questions asked. You pay, they ship, end of story. Government none the wiser
So you believe that felons should be able to order FA through the mail.

ALL Constitutional rights can be deprived, up to and including life, through due process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n2g and hogship

·
Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
So you believe that felons should be able to order FA through the mail.

ALL Constitutional rights can be deprived, up to and including life, through due process.
I do. If they can't be trusted with a firearm then they shouldn't have been released. Harsher sentences for violent crime and crimes involving a firearm would take care of that.
 

·
Scottish Member
Joined
·
11,201 Posts
I do. If they can't be trusted with a firearm then they shouldn't have been released. Harsher sentences for violent crime and crimes involving a firearm would take care of that.
So at what point do you "trust" a 6'3" / 240# athletic man who beat a 5'0" / 100# woman and injured her - but no broken bones and was able to recover physically in month or two? What if he broke her arm and/or a jaw?

Keep him in jail forever? Firing squad?

As much as I'd like to have every violent POS in jail or in the ground, never to be in the general population, that isn't going to happen in the US; I doubt it even exists in the modern world.
 

·
Frisky!
Joined
·
35,492 Posts
Nope.
Life time appointments slide to the center if conservative.
:)
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top