Home > Political & Other Important Issues > Political Issues > If the new justice

If the new justice

  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.
  2. I’d like to see the 1934 NFA challenged, the the 1968 and 1986.
  3. Excellent point. I forgot about that. Hughes amendment repealed as well
  4. Would like to see magazine capacities cease to be a thing.
  5. 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)
  6. 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..

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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’
  10. This.
  11. 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.
  12. I did say 6-3. My bad.
  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. I don't think there has ever been a true conservative in the SCOTUS, and it's not going to start now.
  16. I stand corrected, the Hughes amendment is what I meant in referring to FOPA
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Nope.
    Life time appointments slide to the center if conservative.
  21. Don’t get too confident.

    6-3 will be nice, for a while.

    But all it takes is for Clarence Thomas to retire/die under a liberal President, and we’ll be right back where we are now. With John Roberts being an idiot.

    Trump HAS to win, or this country is doomed.
  22. Me too......however I'm betting we will see new magazine capacity restrictions......and, the SCOTUS will uphold them. Existing high capacity magazines will not be confiscated, or allowed to be sold or transferred.

    I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's my prediction.
  23. If the Democrats mail in ballot cheating scheme fails, Trump will win the election. I predict Justice Thomas will take the opportunity to retire and be replaced with a conservative, and Trump could get to replace Breyer. He is already 82. That would leave only 2 hard core libs left on the court. Would be great for the country, but the Democrats will go bonkers and do something stupid.
  24. I agree that should be the law and I agree that military weapons are what the 2nd Amendment protects, but I don't agree that's what "shall not be infringed" means. First, if "shall not be infringed" meant, "shall make no law" they would have said "shall make no law" like they did in the 1st Amendment - yes, that's an actual legal rule for interpreting laws. Second, even the first Amendment, which says "shall make no law" doesn't prohibit every law concerning speech, the press, religion, etc.
  25. Let's not count our "Chickens" just yet...a LOT can happen between now and any confirmation...and Like Jean posted...just because we "think" the new appointee will vote to uphold traditional Conservative values, there is no guarantee