Big win for 2nd Amendment rights!
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
Rut Nut 23-Jun-22
TheGreatWapiti 23-Jun-22
bigeasygator 23-Jun-22
Stix 23-Jun-22
Bowbender 23-Jun-22
Dano 23-Jun-22
deerhunter72 23-Jun-22
DanaC 23-Jun-22
Dano 23-Jun-22
Gunny 23-Jun-22
deerhunter72 23-Jun-22
DanaC 23-Jun-22
HDE 23-Jun-22
Aspen Ghost 23-Jun-22
Michael 23-Jun-22
RT 23-Jun-22
BowSniper 23-Jun-22
Dano 23-Jun-22
Lawdog 23-Jun-22
Axel 23-Jun-22
deerhunter72 23-Jun-22
[email protected] 23-Jun-22
Matt 23-Jun-22
HDE 23-Jun-22
Beendare 23-Jun-22
TGbow 23-Jun-22
keepemsharp 23-Jun-22
DanaC 23-Jun-22
Dale06 23-Jun-22
TGbow 23-Jun-22
[email protected] 23-Jun-22
Bowbender 23-Jun-22
Dano 23-Jun-22
azelkhntr 23-Jun-22
TGbow 23-Jun-22
DanaC 23-Jun-22
Dano 23-Jun-22
badbull 23-Jun-22
TGbow 23-Jun-22
TGbow 23-Jun-22
keepemsharp 23-Jun-22
Dano 24-Jun-22
Bowbender 24-Jun-22
TGbow 24-Jun-22
Dano 24-Jun-22
Bowbender 24-Jun-22
Shawn 24-Jun-22
SteveB 24-Jun-22
Dano 24-Jun-22
Dano 24-Jun-22
SteveB 24-Jun-22
Dano 24-Jun-22
Dano 24-Jun-22
Coyote 65 24-Jun-22
From: Rut Nut
23-Jun-22

Rut Nut's Link

23-Jun-22
They got that one right!!

From: bigeasygator
23-Jun-22
Nice to a see a 6-3 decision on it as well.

From: Stix
23-Jun-22
NY and other anti-gun states already discussing raising permit fees to $25,000 and requiring $10 million liability insurance policy's to counter this ruling.

From: Bowbender
23-Jun-22
Stix,

That will be an undue burden and likely struck down. Just as was "self defense" was not enough of a reason for CCW.

From: Dano
23-Jun-22
Lots of states yeying to monkee wrench decision already, Hi, NJ, CT, RI, MD.

I would just carry. Jave trip coming up to New England. Now im just driving and will carry in all them chithole states.

DanO

From: deerhunter72
23-Jun-22
Just saw the ruling and I was thrilled! Big win for the 2nd Amendment and I was so glad to see that it was 6-3 decision!

From: DanaC
23-Jun-22
Now watch the gun-haters spin the decision, word by word.

From: Dano
23-Jun-22
You dont have to wait for spin Bowlib.

Breyer decent is spin. He talks of modern this modern that, which has no bearing on the right for citizens to carry weapons without gvt interference as it was written in original text of constitution.

The right to self defense was in place long before constitution was written! 2A was added to affirm this right given by God and it prevent Gvt from meddling with that right.

DanO

From: Gunny
23-Jun-22
Stix,

They can try but it should get ruled unconstitutional in lieu of the constitution and this decision. It will however, most likely get tied up in court. IMO

From: deerhunter72
23-Jun-22
I read a bit of Breyers dissent but couldn't stomach very much of it. So sick of liberals misplacing blame on gun violence. This decision is a huge win, but this country is obviously on the downward slide.

From: DanaC
23-Jun-22
I expect Breyers' dissent will become the textbook for future anti-gun rhetoric and tactics. He's been the Court's wingnut on the subject for decades.

From: HDE
23-Jun-22
"NY and other anti-gun states already discussing raising permit fees to $25,000 and requiring $10 million liability insurance policy's to counter this ruling."

This would be as Unconstitutional as the Poll Tax. Or to keep soilders from being quartered at your residence, you pay a monthly fee of $2,000...

From: Aspen Ghost
23-Jun-22
Remember all the libs proclaiming the importance of Stare Decisis. They just changed their minds.

From: Michael
23-Jun-22

Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Good news!

Alito responded to Breyers dissent.

I have heard Thomas has stated red flag laws would be unconstitutional but cannot find where he has stated it.

From: RT
23-Jun-22
Good news. It's going to be hard to replace Thomas when that sad day comes.

From: BowSniper
23-Jun-22
Why is there a reason to respond to the dissent? They lost. Breyer's opinion/dissent is just his personal feelings with no legal merit or weight.

The Breyer's ice cream guy probably has an opinion too, but no one cares what he thinks either.

From: Dano
23-Jun-22
Hawaii had two laws waiting for this decision. Had to do with permitting and where the gun originated from.

The case goes back and fourth many times after the vote.

Very important that rebuttals are included in fecision for all times.

Breyers claims and data are clear that he does not consider the text of constitution as in day it was written. He makes this clear that the document van evolve and not mean what it says in Modern Times.

Breyer lived his entire life as a fraud and a Lie.

Free men should be proud today

DanO

From: Lawdog
23-Jun-22
Just a historical perspective. The framers originally did not feel that the 2A was necessary as the law, as it existed at the time allowed, and always had, citizens to keep and bear arms. That right was fundamental to English common law-and god given to protect the realm and for citizens of the realm to protect themselves. Some states disagreed and would not ratify the Constitution for that and a number of other reasons. So, they added the Bill of Rights including the 2A. The 2A is worded that the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The idea at the time was that the people could protect themselves from the government, each other, and the US. That was in one of the Federalist Papers-Madison I think. Here's a few other quotes:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

The list can go on, but we're apparently having the same debates now. Glad to see that we, the US, hasn't completely abandoned rational thought.

From: Axel
23-Jun-22
It will be not only hard but impossible to replace the likes of Thomas and Alito if people keep voting for anyone from the Democrat Socialist Party. Who we elect matters more than any other one thing we the people can do. For just one example President Trump was stellar with all of his judicial appointments.

From: deerhunter72
23-Jun-22
^^^ No matter what you think of him, Trump made great appointments to the SCOTUS.

23-Jun-22
^^^^^^

all the excuse they need to get rid of the filibuster and pack the Court before they are out of the Majority.

From: Matt
23-Jun-22
Happy to see a decision that forces the anti-2A crowd to recon with the notion that the Constitution is not just an inconvenience that they can ignore in their pursuit of Utopia.

From: HDE
23-Jun-22
"all the excuse they need to get rid of the filibuster and pack the Court before they are out of the Majority."

And only fools will continue to allow themselves to be subservient to them...

From: Beendare
23-Jun-22
I took a non shooter out to a buddies ranch to shoot pistols last weekend.

Its always the same with these guys….scared to death of it in the beginning…..then once they realize its just a tool…..its Halo and Call of Duty time.

Then on the discussion home they realize- guns…and legal gun owners are a good thing. They need to crack down on criminals using guns.

If they had harsh sentences like cutting off your man part if you use a gun during a violent crime- there wouldn’t be near as many of these incidents.

.

From: TGbow
23-Jun-22
I've read the 2A before, it's really not that hard to understand. These sort of cases shouldn't even be an issue in the courts

From: keepemsharp
23-Jun-22
The 2nd amendment did not give us the right to bear arms. The constitution gives us that. All the 2nd amendment did was say the government cannot take it away, "shall not be infringed".

From: DanaC
23-Jun-22
"The 2nd amendment did not give us the right to bear arms. The constitution gives us that."

Sorry, neither the Constitution nor the amendments thereto 'give us the right' to anything. We HAVE rights, what the Constitution etc. do is form a government that is made to protect them and forbidden to violate them.

If the Constitution 'gives' us rights, it can be amended to take them away. Don't fall into the 'thinking trap' that the anti-gunners are locked in.

From: Dale06
23-Jun-22
Deerhunter72 is precisely right. Had Trump not chosen constitutionalists for the Supreme Court, we would have serious restrictions on our rights. Just think, if Hillary had beat trump.

From: TGbow
23-Jun-22
Well said DanaC. Lots of folks don't realize the founders were sply acknowledging our God given or Natural Rights

23-Jun-22
Correct. Now look at the last couple hundred years and compare how much time and resources the government has spent infringing or trying to infringe on our rights vs protecting or enhancing them.

From: Bowbender
23-Jun-22
BOR's doesn't "give" anything. It merely innumerates what are inherent rights. IOW, the BOR's, USC, none of that gives us anything. What it's supposed to do is limit the governments power. Not ours.

From: Dano
23-Jun-22
They could Amend constitution to dissolve the 2nd A as with any other Amedment..

But the Gvt better have about 275 million cell holding facility. We are not Communists, we are not Maoists, we are not Socialists we are free men with rights that god has bestowed upon us at birth.

No one burned or shot up or rioted because we know these things are so.

Lets see what the Libtards do when Scotus disolves a nad ruling from 72 and rights a tragic wrong.

See who is more law abiding gun owners or the Woke?

DanO

From: azelkhntr
23-Jun-22
The US Constitution doesn't give Rights. It enumerated them for all time. The USC's purpose is to restrain government. Unfortunately, I believe the democrat marxists will simply ignore the SCOTUS as they always do when a decision goes the way of the People.

From: TGbow
23-Jun-22
Yes, they could abolish the 2A. The 16th A is legal but is it moral. Legislation, executive orders, even amendments may be technically legal but the question we all need to ask is..does it contradict fundamental principals already layed down. Slavery was technically legal at one point but Frederick Douglass pointed out on several occasions that if the Constitution were interpreted as it should be, lot of problems would be resolved.

From: DanaC
23-Jun-22
"They could Amend constitution to dissolve the 2nd A as with any other Amendment.. "

.

And if they did so we would STILL have the right, we would not have the restriction on Congress to RESPECT that right. ("...shall not be infringed.")

Nothing the government - ANY government - does, gives or takes away our rights. All they can do is respect, or *refuse to respect* our rights. Ours is a government specifically _designed_ to respect and protect our rights. It is only legitimate to the extent that it does so. (And there are and have always been those who seek power, and who find 'rights' to be a damned nuisance.)

From: Dano
23-Jun-22
Say Again. WTh

DanO

From: badbull
23-Jun-22
In California of all places "concealed carry" has been only a third degree misdemeanor offence which can easily be expunged. Sounds like that could be a better route taking your chances rather than paying some huge fees for permits. Don't ask me how I know this !!

From: TGbow
23-Jun-22
Spot on again DanaC

From: TGbow
23-Jun-22
In other words, when George Bush pushed thru the Patriot Act, it became legal technically but it is an immoral piece of work and contrary to fundamental rights acknowledged by the founders, but not originated by the founders. The founders understood that our rights were given to us by God, those that were Agnostic, Deist, it was given to us by " natural law"

From: keepemsharp
23-Jun-22
The libs had a big horahh last week about a state approving "constitutional" carry. What they did not publish is that they were the 26th state to do so.

From: Dano
24-Jun-22
TG yer 100% correct.

DanO

From: Bowbender
24-Jun-22

Bowbender's Link
And here we have 15 "republican" senators basically giving the dems a much needed victory. The bill does nothing except stop the dems political free fall.

Special thanks to:

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Todd Young of Indiana, and Roy Blunt of Missouri.

From: TGbow
24-Jun-22
I knew Romney and Graham would be in the pack

From: Dano
24-Jun-22
Shitbirds. Red Flags will be overturned by Scotus. Count on it!!

Next move will be to make CCW nation wide just like a pilots license or a drivers license. Only way it can be legal for all everywhere.

DanO

From: Bowbender
24-Jun-22
"Next move will be to make CCW nation wide just like a pilots license or a drivers license. "

That's a negative ghostrider. I'm a big fan of CCW. Bigger fan of states rights. 'Sides...the feds giveth, the feds taketh away. Also, drivers/pilots license is a privilge, not a right.

From: Shawn
24-Jun-22
Read Thomas's 135 page decision, lots of what folks are posting is not correct. Raising fees to an absurd amount cannot happen!! Lots of info in there and all of it is not great news but 95% of it is!! Shawn

From: SteveB
24-Jun-22
Elections have consequences - Trump getting 3 SC picks was bigger than nearly anything else that he did.

From: Dano
24-Jun-22
Read Breyers dissent if you want a look where the Libtards would love to go!

DanO

24-Jun-22
mean tweets were worth it. god bless trump...

From: Dano
24-Jun-22
45 will have his Soapbox back soon.

Think he wants a shot a Speaker of House for one year.

So he can tell voters every single day “ Joe muled the election. Im coming back soon.” Every camera in country will be on him everyday. FNN would actually turn a profit again.

DanO

From: SteveB
24-Jun-22
Personally, as good as his policies were, I hope he doesn't run again and rather supports a candidate who CAN win.

From: Dano
24-Jun-22
Make ready…. He wants Speaker Gavel!

DanO

From: Dano
24-Jun-22
Make ready…. He wants Speaker Gavel!

DanO

From: Coyote 65
24-Jun-22
After listening to a couple of lawyers on youtube explain the ramnifications of the decision this is going to affect all 2 amendment decisions going forth. Decisions must be based on text, tradition and history. And text is "shall not be infringed". Going to be hard to get around that.

Terry

  • Sitka Gear