• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Article: Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Ought Not ‘Stand by Idly’ as Gun Control Cripples 2n

Just shows that most of the SCOTUS doesn't give a shit about the constitution any more than our politicians do. But we knew that: They all pick and choose which rights to support at any given moment.
 
I might cause a fire-storm of protest but it needs to be said that the COTUS, and the Bill of Rights, is *supposed to be* a limit on the power of the federal government. Sadly, activist courts seem to have forgotten that truth, and the end result is discovered rights which are then jammed down the throat, or up the arse, of the individual states, and commonwealths. Folks, *we* cannot have it both ways; as much as I despise the laws in MA, they are the business of the MA legislature, not the federal fekkin' government.
 
except in as much as they violate the supreme law of the land: COTUS. When individual states take it upon themselves to deprive citizens of their rights, there needs to be a recourse.
 
bigblue said:
except in as much as they violate the supreme law of the land: COTUS. When individual states take it upon themselves to deprive citizens of their rights, there needs to be a recourse.
Click to expand...

THIS. Unfortunately, those of us that believe this (including Justice Thomas) are in the minority in this once great country.
 
bigblue said:
except in as much as they violate the supreme law of the land: COTUS. When individual states take it upon themselves to deprive citizens of their rights, there needs to be a recourse.
Click to expand...

Except in as much as the SCOTUS also violates "the supreme law of the land". When that happens, the Constitution is effectively no limit at all to the power of the Fed, provided the SCrOTUS "approves". If then, what is the point of a legislature?
 
Green_Manelishi said:
Except in as much as the SCOTUS also violates "the supreme law of the land". When that happens, the Constitution is effectively no limit at all to the power of the Fed, provided the SCrOTUS "approves". If then, what is the point of a legislature?
Click to expand...

This is what the left has been doing for decades now. They turned the courts into super legislatures where they can be sole arbiters of the law and the decisions are nearly impossible to overturn. I think it's fun ramming it down their throats now for a change.
 
Can you imagine if the Mass AWB was up for SC review and got denied?

Given that CA is in worse shape than MA regarding gun rights, this denial is a major step backwards in restoring 2A.
 
71montess said:
Except the 2nd amendment to OUR constitution of the United States , sets a line in the sand that the individual States "should" not cross.
Click to expand...

Except that the 10th amendment reserves to the states, or the people, any power not specifically granted to the Fed, or denied the states. Subsequent amendments have been used to justify an ever increasing intrusion, and incursion, into the rights of the individual states. Thus, much as I dislike it, the states SHOULD have the right to regulate firearms, it's the Feds that are to sit down and shut up.
 
Green_Manelishi said:
Except that the 10th amendment reserves to the states, or the people, any power not specifically granted to the Fed, or denied the states. Subsequent amendments have been used to justify an ever increasing intrusion, and incursion, into the rights of the individual states. Thus, much as I dislike it, the states SHOULD have the right to regulate firearms, it's the Feds that are to sit down and shut up.
Click to expand...

So states have the right to ignore the constitution? If so, they should be removed/or leave the union, but states will never leave the cows tit
 
Last edited:
Chevy 2 65 said:
So states have the right to ignore the constitution? If so, they should be removed/or leave the union, but states will never leave the cows tit
Click to expand...

A few states attempted to secede; the response from the Fed was not pretty. It was bloody and destructive.

You might want to review a bit of the COTUS, SC(r)OTUS rulings in the past, and carefully consider how much usurped power you want the SC(r)TUS to wield; unfettered they hand us abortion, gay marriage, no more prayer in school, forced purchase of "healthcare", etc. Personally, having had the unpleasant experience of an automobile failing an inspection in the Commywealth of NAZIchusetts, due to dark windows, but passing the inspection in The Peoples Republic of Maine-achusetts, I'd like to see the Feds take over inspections and issue a national driver's license and all. That, however, would violate a primary directive of mine; that the Fed should be EXTREMELY limited in power and authority.
 
Tinted windows are not a constitionally protected Right. States are not (should not be) allowed to usurp that which is Federally protected for the people by the Constitution, yet when it comes to 2A they do.
 
Green_Manelishi said:
A few states attempted to secede; the response from the Fed was not pretty. It was bloody and destructive.

You might want to review a bit of the COTUS, SC(r)OTUS rulings in the past, and carefully consider how much usurped power you want the SC(r)TUS to wield; unfettered they hand us abortion, gay marriage, no more prayer in school, forced purchase of "healthcare", etc. Personally, having had the unpleasant experience of an automobile failing an inspection in the Commywealth of NAZIchusetts, due to dark windows, but passing the inspection in The Peoples Republic of Maine-achusetts, I'd like to see the Feds take over inspections and issue a national driver's license and all. That, however, would violate a primary directive of mine; that the Fed should be EXTREMELY limited in power and authority.
Click to expand...
have to disagree. The feds should and need to uphold the Bill rights etc.. and bitch slap states that violate those rights ! inspection stickers are BS.
 
I thought the states became bound by the constitution when they ratified it. There certainly needs to be some mechanism to force the states to live up to that. There also needs to be some mechanism to keep the supreme court from overstepping its authority as mentioned above.

If one state is allowing activity that is argued to be constitutionally protected and another is not, that should require the SC to hear the case.
 
Green_Manelishi said:
Except that the 10th amendment reserves to the states, or the people, any power not specifically granted to the Fed, or denied the states. Subsequent amendments have been used to justify an ever increasing intrusion, and incursion, into the rights of the individual states. Thus, much as I dislike it, the states SHOULD have the right to regulate firearms, it's the Feds that are to sit down and shut up.
Click to expand...

In this particular case, the answer to the question of whether the federal government or the states should regulate firearms is NEITHER!
 
I said this after McDonald & Heller and I'll say it again.

The court will never take another gun case that has anything to do with an AWB. This includes anything to do with mag capacity or ARs. They know they cannot reconcile any of the existing decisions to support such laws. It will completely cripple everything all the way back to '34 to admit that common military weaponry is exactly what 2A protects.
 
It's really easy....Just follow this simple words

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.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
It's really easy....Just follow this simple words

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.
Click to expand...
But it says "militia"! I mean, it sounds like "military", so that means guns were only meant for the military, not for private use. CASE CLOSED!
 
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake. In the Colorado case, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, along with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal at the time, and then hold a reception in Colorado. But Phillips refused to discuss the issue, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to have anything to do with same-sex marriage. He said other bakeries would accommodate them. The couple filed a complaint, and in 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips’s action violated state law. That ruling was upheld in Colorado state courts.

<http://bangordailynews.com/2017/06/26/news/nation/supreme-court-to-hear-bakers-religious-objection-to-making-cake-for-gay-couple/>
 
It's nice to see that Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in the dissent.

If the Gorsuch nomination is the only thing Trump ever did during his presidency I would consider it a successful presidency.
 

Similar threads

Article: Veterans Day 2017
Replies
5
Views
528
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: Nevada AG: Bloomberg-Backed Background Checks Would Not Have Prevented Las V
Replies
2
Views
513
Massbirdhunter
M
Article: Trump Bypasses Congress to Open Up World Markets to U.S. Gun Makers
Replies
10
Views
956
Crotchrocket
Crotchrocket
Article: 7 Mistakes Coyote Hunters Make
Replies
1
Views
460
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Article: Paul Ryan Ignoring National Reciprocity for 43rd Consecutive Week
Replies
6
Views
1K
weldingmachine
W
Back
Top Bottom