Join TexasGunTalk

SCOTUS might do the work FineStien cannot

Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by Ole Cowboy, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. Ole Cowboy

    Ole Cowboy TGT Addict

    May 23, 2013
    17 Oaks Ranch
    If The Supreme Court Takes This Gun Control Case, Its Decision Will Be Huge

    When the Supreme Court meets later today to discuss pending petitions for review, the justices’ conference calendar will include a pivotal Second Amendment case: Kolbe v. Hogan.

    In Kolbe v. Hogan, the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s ban of semiautomatic rifles and detachable ammunition magazines that exceed ten rounds. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit became the fourth federal appellate court to uphold the constitutionality of a ban on “assault” weapons and large-capacity magazines. The Second, Seventh, and District of Columbia circuits have previously upheld similar bans, and, to date, the Supreme Court has refused to enter the fray.

    But Kolbe v. Hogan will likely force the justices’ hand. Here’s why.

    Three Different Standards for Constitutionality
    While the four circuit courts that have considered the constitutionality of bans on “assault” weapons and large-capacity magazines have all upheld the gun-control legislation, in doing so they have adopted three different standards for judging the constitutionality of the laws under the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Heller decision...

    Read the rest:

    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  2. easy rider

    easy rider Allotropic Transformer TGT Supporter

    Jun 10, 2015
    Odessa, Tx
    They keep arguing home defense as if that is what the second amendment says. What part of "necessary to the security of a free state" does it tell me what kind of firearm I can use for home defense?
  3. Time On Target

    Time On Target New Member

    Feb 22, 2016
    When I was teaching Critical Thinking at the College level I used to put up "Separation of Church and State" which all of my students thought was in the Constitution, I would ask where and they couldn't tell me and then I would put the 1rst Amendment up and let them read it. The overwhelming response was that isn't what the Amendment says, which is why I told them to never trust anyone and always read what was actually in a document or argument.

    Under current philosophy the musket would have been banned because it was what the military carried and used. Thus it would have been an assault rifle with a multi-round magazine being carried on the person in the form of powder and shot in pouches.

    The Second Amendment was put in there because the Founders didn't trust big government and knew that an armed populace was the only reason that they had won. There are times when I wonder if SCOTUS has ever read the Constitution.
    Tanked84 and schmellba99 like this.
  4. TheDan

    TheDan 4th Best Member TGT Supporter

    Nov 11, 2008
    Austin - Rockdale
    Hopefully SCOTUS doesn't weasel out of taking the case. Lets see where we really stand.
  5. Ole Cowboy

    Ole Cowboy TGT Addict

    May 23, 2013
    17 Oaks Ranch
    Lets look at this "critically":

    Who was the INTENDED reader and who was affected by the Constitution: Oddly enough that is set forth in the Constitution in the very first line: "We the PEOPLE", it does not say we the lawyers, judges or politico's..

    As a member in good standing of "We the PEOPLE" I read it for what it says and to that end the 2nd is very clear and especially CONCISE! It states "shall NOT be Infringed"...DUH, that kinda, sorta tells me everything, that no lawyer or 2 bit whore of a judge can OVERRULE what We the People read..

    It says NOTHING about defense of my home/or family, granted that is an IMPLIED objective as part of a free state, but it is not the prime subject.

    Is it time to stand up and to judges who TRY to legislate from the bench by just not following their ruling. They are NOT empowered to make law, there job is to interpret in accordance with the Constitution, not spin it as they see fit...
    Tanked84 likes this.
  6. Darkpriest667

    Darkpriest667 Well-Known

    Jan 13, 2017
    Fort Worth
    By all technicality we should be allowed to own nukes, cruise missiles, and tanks. Because militias were meant to fight in military operations against invaders or an oppressive state. The militias the 2nd amendment refers to were better armed than the British troops they were fighting (they typically had a better rifle than the standard British rifle.) The Pennsylvania rifle was particularly nasty and the British hated it.
  7. Wiliamr

    Wiliamr Active Member

    Apr 15, 2011
    We are just another generation away from "The People" believing that the 2nd Amendment only applies to self defense and that only the government should have "military style" firearms.
    pronstar likes this.
  8. Ole Cowboy

    Ole Cowboy TGT Addict

    May 23, 2013
    17 Oaks Ranch
    I will disagree on this. Here again I go back to the 2nd and what it says: "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."

    Militia: A military force raised from the civilian population, people, individuals.

    bear Arms: To hold arms, guns, rifles, pistols, INDIVIDUAL weapons not crew served.

    This is how I read it under my criteria of being a common man and not a lawyer or politician.
    karlac likes this.
  9. AustinN4

    AustinN4 TGT Addict

    Nov 27, 2013
    I can hold a SAW.
    pronstar likes this.
  10. Ole Cowboy

    Ole Cowboy TGT Addict

    May 23, 2013
    17 Oaks Ranch
    Must disagree and I am assuming that a generation away is 25 years, then no way IMO. I will make the call saying we are but 1 election for POTUS away. The Dems smell blood in 2020 and there is NOTHING they will not do to win...NOTHING! I don't believe for a single min that they will run Joe Biden, in fact I would shocked if they did. He is a WHITE heterosexual male and that fits nothing on their agenda. Black and or Latino, female is the direction the DNC is going and you can bet that extreme far left will be the mantra:

    IMO I see these as early contenders for POTUS and VPOTUS:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

    Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)

    First lady Michelle Obama

    Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

    Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg*

    Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD)

    Not a single one of these supports the 2nd A in any way, in fact most of them would erase it completely.

    *Zuckerberg, yes he is pasty white man, but he brings to the table his UBI (Universal Basic Income) for all. Its welfare by another name meaning its still lipstick on a pig, but he sells as enough money were you don't need to work therefore you can pursue your dreams of inventing a perpetual motion machine or what ever and make the world a better place. My guess is his idea if it gets traction among the people as in cross over to the center the the other pigs will co-op it or bring him in as a possible VP.

    Thinking the POTUS is going to be a radical female, my guess is 1st choice would go to MeShell Obama, but she seems more like she really does not want it then Pocohauntus Warren could be top ticket with Cory Booker in the #2 slot..

    No matter its not gonna take a generation to go all commie socialist full manchu...


Share This Page