Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[Justabirdwatcher]

Just curious which justices "don't support" the second amendment, and why someone would say they don't.

 

[Doublecluck]

I think a lot of folks forget that for a lot of people, 2016 wasn’t about people liking candidate X it was about who candidate y would put on the SC.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I think a lot of folks forget that for a lot of people, 2016 wasn’t about people liking candidate X it was about who candidate y would put on the SC.

And how has that worked out lately?

 

[Doublecluck]

And how has that worked out lately?

As it pertains to this topic, I don’t think we could ever know, but most assuredly the pendulum will swing further the next go around.

 

[Clam]

The WSJ had an article the other day in which it explained how the left (Chuck Schumer et. al.) are using the threat of packing the Supreme Court when they eventually get power again to intimidate the more conservative judges. Seems to be working, at a cost to the integrity of our country.

 

[Wildabeest]

Excellent and well articulated post DoubleGunner. I agree with most everything except the last sentence. If gun rights were the only issue I cared about, then perhaps I could agree with it (but probably not). But since I’m looking at the hard right turn the SCOTUS is taking across the board under this president’s nominees,

 

[shootbrownelk]

The way the political landscape is sent up today, every little personal detail of your life becomes public. The opposition party in addition is going to do everything fair or unfalr, legal or not to attack you personally and to destroy your reputation along with your family. I do not want everything about me splattered across the front page. Not that I care, but I do value my privacy on things. As a candidate for POTUS, Congress or SCOTUS nothing is private anymore. And no one currently in office at the federal level is qualified to be there other than a few SCOTUS appointees. Plus the system is so freaking corrupt, they will protect the current establishment rather than represent the people to voted them in.

Of those "Few SCOTUS appointees" John Roberts sure ain't one of them. Thanks George W.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Sounds like you would also be against term limits for the president. Or are you good with term limits to limit the power of individuals in government?

Someone as obviously corrupt and ineffective as Feel-em-up Biden has no business being a US Senator for almost 50 years. That says a lot about the idiots in his home state that keep voting for him.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

give me nine SC justices that just do their job of interpreting the law, and I'm good.

trying to manipulate the court in either direction is unpatriotic IMO

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just curious which justices "don't support" the second amendment, and why someone would say they don't.

Based on their own writings, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and Ginsburg believe there is no individual right to bear arms under the second amendment, viewing it as entirely limited to the states forming national guards.

Also based on their own writings, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh recognize a private right within the 2A and would apply strict scrutiny to review of challenged restrictions.

Roberts is the wild card. He voted for Heller but has not supported any recent review of various state/local restrictions. If either set of 4 believed they had Roberts’ vote in the can they would have granted cert to one or more of the recent 10 appealed cases (it only take 4 justices to grant review), but neither side has apparently been willing to roll the dice on his vote.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Point of order.

Can we all agree to cool it on the epithets. They are injecting partisanship into this conversation.

 

[fmnjr]

You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco? I would say the Feds are 2-0 on this one.

This "out of my cold dead hands" rhetoric is just as helpful in convincing the left to respect the 2nd A as tipping over statue's and burning cities is to making rural whites become "woke".

I am a lifelong conservative/libertarian supporter of textualist courts and the 2nd A - if you can't convince me with your logic you have no chance with the rest of society.

Sorry, it took so long to reply because my family and I were at the NRA range exercising our 2A right to bear arms. Exercised it about 400 times I think.

The examples you sight were terrible and tragic events that never should have happened, and they were isolated ones, too.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of my rights, just stating them factually.

If others want to believe that they can someday come to the doors of like-minded people in this country and physically take their weapons, I'm saying the outcome shouldn't be surprising.

Thanks for taking the time to understand and support your rights.

 

[BigHornRam]

I have No position on the the event itself - its causes or resolution. I was referring to the odds of individuals throwing lead at at militarized police force. And with that lens the feds “won”.

If you watch the documentary you would learn something and would not be so flippant.

 

[BigHornRam]

Since news traveled slower and the news pretty much only had the government line fed to them on RR and Waco, didn’t the vast majority of the general public think that the Dividians at Waco and the Weavers were domestic terrorists/white supremacists, deserving of what happened and it wasn’t until afterwards that more was learned?

That is a question, not a statement. I was a toddler/child and remember none of it.

Everyone should watch this documentary on RR. This is how journalism should be done, instead of the agenda journalism of today. I lived in Moscow, Idaho at the time of this and never heard exactly what happened. Just one sides version or the other. I learned a lot watching it, the event reminds me a whole lot of what happened to George Floyd, except there were no cameras present to film it.

Ruby Ridge | American Experience | PBS

A riveting account of the event that helped give rise to the modern American militia movement.

www.pbs.org

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Based on their own writings, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and Ginsburg believe there is no individual right to bear arms under the second amendment, viewing it as entirely limited to the states forming national guards.

Also based on their own writings, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh recognize a private right within the 2A and would apply strict scrutiny to review of challenged restrictions.

Roberts is the wild card. He voted for Heller but has not supported any recent review of various state/local restrictions. If either set of 4 believed they had Roberts’ vote in the can they would have granted cert to one or more of the recent 10 appealed cases (it only take 4 justices to grant review), but neither side has apparently been willing to roll the dice on his vote.

So is the first group of justices you mention not supporting the 2A, or are they just not agreeing with your interpretation? There is a difference. That is why we have SC justices - to interpret the constitution and other laws and decide how they apply in real-world situations.

If they came out and said they want the 2A struck down, that's one thing. But they are entitled to their professional interpretation of the 2A. That is different than not "supporting" it.

 

[LWC55]

So is the first group of justices you mention not supporting the 2A, or are they just not agreeing with your interpretation? There is a difference. That is why we have SC justices - to interpret the constitution and other laws and decide how they apply in real-world situations.

If they came out and said they want the 2A struck down, that's one thing. But they are entitled to their professional interpretation of the 2A. That is different than not "supporting" it.

Saying they are against an individual's right to bear arms does the same thing. It means they want 2A struck down.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Saying they are against an individual's right to bear arms does the same thing. It means they want 2A struck down.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's an interpretation, which is what they were hired to do. Did any of them actually come out and say they were against an individual's right to bear arms, or just certain arms? Disagreeing on what constitutes "arms" is quite different than wanting the entire 2A removed. I guess that's why there are 9 of them though.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So is the first group of justices you mention not supporting the 2A, or are they just not agreeing with your interpretation? There is a difference. That is why we have SC justices - to interpret the constitution and other laws and decide how they apply in real-world situations.

If they came out and said they want the 2A struck down, that's one thing. But they are entitled to their professional interpretation of the 2A. That is different than not "supporting" it.

First, I never used "support" or "no support". I specifically referenced their specific interperetations (as you note would suggest you wanted)

Second, context. In the context of this thread most readers would understand that "supporting the 2A" means supporting a personal (non- national guard) approach to the 2A. No different than saying which judges support abortion rights, or which justices support affirmative action. Of course, they are professionals who are charged with using their judgement, but the exercise of that judgement is then generally perceived as "for" or "against" a particular proposition in most casual conversation on both sides of the various issues.

Third, even beyond that, a number of the "national guard limited 2A" justices have publicly supported former Justice Stevens' call to repeal the 2A altogether, so I guess that also opens the question of their "support".

 

[JLS]

Back to the original title, I am questioning what banning on line ammo sales is going to accomplish. I buy 16 gauge ammo by the case each year.

Even internet gun sales go through an FFL. Head scratcher for sure.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Saying they are against an individual's right to bear arms does the same thing. It means they want 2A struck down.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Broad strokes

Interpretation 1.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The bold phrase was included to inform the purple part. Thus the interpretation that the 2A exists to protect individuals states rights to have militia... not individuals. The people = the state i.e. Colorado.

Interpretation 2.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The bold phrase and purple phrase are separate clauses. and shall not be infringed pertains only to the purple part, and the people are individuals.


As @VikingsGuy alluded to it's actually been fairly recent that the second interpretation was taken up.