Lynx Defense

Amy Barrett disappointing Dems

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Collins voted 'no'. Some speculation that this was allowed by the Republican leadership since they knew they didn't need her vote on this one, and it might help her get elected in a very very tight race back home.

    She's a horrid RINO, but still better than a democrat in that seat.

    OK, so hopefully we can test Trump's new Justice League with some 2A cases, and find out if they're worth a damn.

    Oh yeah, as promised -- going to knock one back for "St Mitch"!
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Collins voted 'no'. Some speculation that this was allowed by the Republican leadership since they knew they didn't need her vote on this one, and it might help her get elected in a very very tight race back home.

    She's a horrid RINO, but still better than a democrat in that seat.

    OK, so hopefully we can test Trump's new Justice League with some 2A cases, and find out if they're worth a damn.

    etmo,

    It will NOT be long until we find out, as there are TWO 2nd Amendment cases to be heard in 2021 by the SCOTUS.

    yours, satx
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Collins voted 'no'. Some speculation that this was allowed by the Republican leadership since they knew they didn't need her vote on this one, and it might help her get elected in a very very tight race back home.

    She's a horrid RINO, but still better than a democrat in that seat.

    OK, so hopefully we can test Trump's new Justice League with some 2A cases, and find out if they're worth a damn.

    Oh yeah, as promised -- going to knock one back for "St Mitch"!
    I don't think it is speculation, rather hard fact.

    Yep, we should see some 2A cases now that the other four Constitution believing justices (e.g., excluding Roberts and his flip flops here) have someone they can count on to uphold the Constitution and not play politics.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?
    Absolutely. Plenty of evidence to back that up.
     

    SQLGeek

    Muh state lines
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    9,591
    96
    Richmond
    Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?

    Yes. It seems to be thought that Roberts is so much of a wild card that neither wing of the SCOTUS wanted to grant cert on 2A cases. I'm sure he's rather proud of that power he wields.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?
    I would add that the four solid Constitutionalists have put in writing (in very strong terms) that the 2A cases need to be heard, while all declining to hear the cases. This happened for exactly the reason you state. They don't trust Roberts and would not risk a case going the wrong way.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Absolutely. Plenty of evidence to back that up.
    Yes. It seems to be thought that Roberts is so much of a wild card that neither wing of the SCOTUS wanted to grant cert on 2A cases. I'm sure he's rather proud of that power he wields.
    I would add that the four solid Constitutionalists have put in writing (in very strong terms) that the 2A cases need to be heard, while all declining to hear the cases. This happened for exactly the reason you state. They don't trust Roberts and would not risk a case going the wrong way.

    I suspected that, but didn't know for sure. Thank you both for clarifying that for me. If I'm not mistaken, there are several cases up for review, or being heard before the Supreme Court that were being delayed or something to that effect.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Simply speculating and wondering, if maybe they were delaying hearing any 2nd Amendment cases until they were sure they could get an objective ruling, based upon law, rather than politics?

    It started with Justice Kennedy, when he was still on the Court. A newspaper, IIRC it was the Washington Post, published an unsubstantiated rumor that Kennedy was the swing vote on 2A issues, and Roberts was thought to be reliable. Well, after Kennedy retired, and still no 2A issues were brought before the Court, that rumor was exposed as BS, or at least partially false (it might have been both Kennedy AND Roberts who didn't want to touch any more 2A cases).

    Later, we saw originalist Justices writing angry dissents asking why the Court wasn't protecting the 2A, so we obviously had good reason to suspect that the originalists were ready to take a 2A case. We know the progressives hate the 2A, so that left Roberts, which is the current theory. Roberts' opinion on the 2A is unknown, therefore you can't safely bring a 2A case before the Court.

    Why not? SQLGeek has what most consider to be the reason why. 4 progressive Justices could grant cert and nothing could stop them, but they didn't know what Roberts would do, so they might be expanding gun rights if they brought a case in and Roberts voted with the 4 originalists.
    4 originalist Justices had the same problem, but from the other perspective -- what if Roberts flips again and they end up destroying 2A rights they are supposed to protect, when Roberts votes with the 4 progressives?

    So it was a great detente, which Roberts probably loved, because he hated controversy.

    Well, now that theory gets a real test. Roberts no longer matters. If Barrett is the originalist she claims to be, she won't have any problems interpreting the 2A as it was written, so granting a case that should be an easy win for us, like carry, should mean that Barrett will side with us.

    As mentioned by toddjoyce elsewhere, just because she's an originalist doesn't mean she'll grant our every wish regarding the 2A -- far from it! Because the original meaning of "infringed" is "break", so according to the 2A, to be unconstitutional, a law has to break your RKBA. The example I gave elsewhere regarded AP ammo -- banning AP ammo does not break your RKBA, because you still have the whole world of ammo available to you. Same with bump stocks and suppressors and SBRs and weird calibers and all kinds of things -- totally OK to ban them, because banning them doesn't break your RKBA.

    Eventually, if you keep banning one thing at a time, you'll have banned so many things that the aggregate of all those individual bans is a general ban of such significance that it does break your RKBA, this is called "incrementalism", where by increments, they eventually destroy the 2A. That is something that is applicable in places like NY and CA, but not Texas.

    Anyways, there are a lot of "actually broke my RKBA" type cases out there from anti-2A places like CA and NY that the Court needs to get through before we start worrying about the stuff that's borderline. One of those should be sent up very soon as a "trial balloon" to test the weather of the new SCOTUS, and then we'll see where we stand.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    As mentioned by toddjoyce elsewhere, just because she's an originalist doesn't mean she'll grant our every wish regarding the 2A -- far from it! Because the original meaning of "infringed" is "break", so according to the 2A, to be unconstitutional, a law has to break your RKBA. The example I gave elsewhere regarded AP ammo -- banning AP ammo does not break your RKBA, because you still have the whole world of ammo available to you. Same with bump stocks and suppressors and SBRs and weird calibers and all kinds of things -- totally OK to ban them, because banning them doesn't break your RKBA.

    Eventually, if you keep banning one thing at a time, you'll have banned so many things that the aggregate of all those individual bans is a general ban of such significance that it does break your RKBA, this is called "incrementalism", where by increments, they eventually destroy the 2A. That is something that is applicable in places like NY and CA, but not Texas.

    Anyways, there are a lot of "actually broke my RKBA" type cases out there from anti-2A places like CA and NY that the Court needs to get through before we start worrying about the stuff that's borderline. One of those should be sent up very soon as a "trial balloon" to test the weather of the new SCOTUS, and then we'll see where we stand.
    Actually, many originalists disagree with this definition of "break".
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Actually, many originalists disagree with this definition of "break".

    If so, I have never heard any of them speak nor read any of their work. I'd be interested to see what examples you have, and how they support their belief regarding the original meaning of infringement.

    However, even Justice Scalia, who deserves full credit for restoring originalism in America, said that there is room for originalists to disagree. Scalia cited cases where he and Justice Thomas disagreed as an example. Originalism, as Justice Scalia famously said, does not claim to be perfect, only superior to any alternative.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    For some idea on ACB’s overall thought processes, here’s a 2019 talk/Q&A done at Hillsdale College. She speaks specifically to 2A and her opinion in Kanter v Barr starting at 28:05 and going for about seven minutes.

     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    For some idea on ACB’s overall thought processes, here’s a 2019 talk/Q&A done at Hillsdale College. She speaks specifically to 2A and her opinion in Kanter v Barr starting at 28:05 and going for about seven minutes.



    I watched the entire video. She is articulate, and very intelligent. She has an excellent grasp of the rule of law and how it is suppose to be applied.

    I am more impressed with her than ever, and think she is going to be a fine SC justice.

    If she wasn't already married, I'd marry her too!
     

    gambler

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 31, 2020
    1,092
    96
    Texas
    Not one bit of this matters if the dims win the POTUS and senate majority. That is what everyone better be worried about. The Supreme Court will be stacked with socialists and we will all be screwed in every way !

    Even Trump commented to his people that the senate was probably lost.
     
    Top Bottom