Plax in prison

[MightyGiants]

on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association's lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: "One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

former Justice  John Paul Stevens

The enclosed memorandum explains the basis for my firm belief that the Second Amendment does not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of the federal government to regulate the non-military use or possession of firearms. I have decided to take the unusual step of circulating the initial draft of a probable dissent before [Scalia] circulates his majority because I fear the members of the majority have not yet adequately considered the unusual importance of their decision.

While I think a fair reading of history provides overwhelming support for Warren Burger's view of the merits, even if we assume that the present majority is correct, I submit that they have not given adequate consideration to the certain impact of their proposed decision on this Court's role in preserving the rule of law. We have profound differences over our role in areas of the law such as the Eighth Amendment and substantive due process, but I believe we all agree that there are areas of policy-making in which judges have a special obligation to let the democratic process run the show ...

What has happened that could possibly justify such a massive change in the law? The text of the amendment has not changed. The history leading up to the adoption of the amendment has not changed ... There has been a change in the views of some law professors, but I assume there are also some professors out there who think Congress does not have the authority to authorize a national bank, or to regulate small firms engaged in the production of goods for sale in other states, or to enact a graduated income tax. In my judgment, none of the arguments advanced by respondents or their numerous amici justify judicial entry into a quintessential area of policy-making in which there is no special need or justification for judicial supervision.

This is not a case in which either side of the policy debate can be characterized as an "insular minority" in need of special protection from the judiciary. On the contrary, there is a special risk that the action of the judiciary will be perceived as the product of policy arguments advanced by an unusually powerful political force. Because there is still time to avoid a serious and totally unnecessary self-inflicted wound, I urge each of the members of the majority to give careful consideration to the impact of this decision on the future of this institution when weighing the strength of the arguments I have set forth in what I hope will not be a dissent.

Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court's unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, "In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Still can't answer any questions!  Typical

You can keep throwing up more info that justifies your belief!

If I cared to live in my basement and google all day too I could post a bunch of stuff proving the opposite. 

I don't have to though, I have the constitution and the courts backing up my rights vs your wants!  Thank god for constitutional judges that read and interpret the LAW verse create law from the bench like some do!

In the end your beliefs/wants are irrelevant as the courts keep ruling in the favor of pro 2A rights.

So keep on trying and failing though it's fun to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MightyGiants]

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We all can Google and post pics or stats! 

The difference is yours won't change my 2A right to bare arms that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[MightyGiants]

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Benitez's ruling on June 21, 2021, leaving the ban in place as appeals were litigated


Judge Roger Benitez

Benitez was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to serve as a United States magistrate judge. On May 1, 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush

Benitez was confirmed despite overwhelming opposition from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates the qualifications of judicial nominees. A substantial majority of the committee rated Benitez "not qualified" and a minority rated him as "qualified." In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ABA committee investigator reported that, "Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean, and altogether lacking in people skills.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slugsy-Narrows]

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Benitez's ruling on June 21, 2021, leaving the ban in place as appeals were litigated


Judge Roger Benitez

Benitez was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to serve as a United States magistrate judge. On May 1, 2003, he was nominated by President George W. Bush

Benitez was confirmed despite overwhelming opposition from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates the qualifications of judicial nominees. A substantial majority of the committee rated Benitez "not qualified" and a minority rated him as "qualified." In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ABA committee investigator reported that, "Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean, and altogether lacking in people skills.

https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/6798-california-assault-weapons-ban-scotus-end-ruling/

And when the Supreme Court hears this case what do you think will happen lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MightyGiants]

https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/6798-california-assault-weapons-ban-scotus-end-ruling/

And when the Supreme Court hears this case what do you think will happen lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you bragged about before, your side has perverted our Constitution and crapped on our democratic principles/the will of the American people.    A president who the American people voted against being president appointed 3 out of the 7 Supreme Court justices.   The last President to win the vote of the American people was denied the right to appoint a judge by a Senator who was elected by far less than a million Americans (compared to the 66 million that had voted for that President). 

Those three judges appointed by a President who the American people didn't want were all unqualified and made it clear their ideologies and religious beliefs were more important than our Constitution and the will of the American people.

So I think there is an excellent chance that the same judges (who were appointed against the will of the American people) who have perverted our justice system and our Constitution will continue to ignore our Constitution and rule against the American people in favor of their radical political ideologies and beliefs.

Sadly many Americans will needlessly die due to their rulings.  Then again, dictatorships have never been shown to be a good thing.  Democracies with a fair and impartial judiciary system that properly interprets and protects the rights of the people have always been the best way. 

I guess that's why Gallop has found 53% of Americans disprove of the Supreme Court while only 40% support what they have been doing.

[T200]

Why don't you two take this to PMs? You're just talking past each other.

[Slugsy-Narrows]

As you bragged about before, your side has perverted our Constitution and crapped on our democratic principles/the will of the American people.    A president who the American people voted against being president appointed 3 out of the 7 Supreme Court justices.   The last President to win the vote of the American people was denied the right to appoint a judge by a Senator who was elected by far less than a million Americans (compared to the 66 million that had voted for that President). 

Those three judges appointed by a President who the American people didn't want were all unqualified and made it clear their ideologies and religious beliefs were more important than our Constitution and the will of the American people.

So I think there is an excellent chance that the same judges (who were appointed against the will of the American people) who have perverted our justice system and our Constitution will continue to ignore our Constitution and rule against the American people in favor of their radical political ideologies and beliefs.

Sadly many Americans will needlessly die due to their rulings.  Then again, dictatorships have never been shown to be a good thing.  Democracies with a fair and impartial judiciary system that properly interprets and protects the rights of the people have always been the best way. 

I guess that's why Gallop has found 53% of Americans disprove of the Supreme Court while only 40% support what they have been doing.

We have an electoral college for a reason so total votes out of left leaning cities and states (that are all running like garbage and in the toilet by left leaning politicians) aren't what elects a president and that is also something smart our founders did!

So a properly elected president got to nominate and have passed by a simple majority (due to rules the left put in place to ram judges through while Obama was president) got to put 3 judges on the court!

The senate held up an Obama nominee yes and by the rules they could and they would have done it if roles were reversed!  Hence to all elections have consequences.

As for perverting the constitution the left hasn't red and followed the constitution in decades!  If not for constitutional judges and conservatives the left would have used the constitution for toilet paper as they continually try to do!

So yes conservative have the majority in the Supreme Court!  I'm am glad they do!  Someone needs to reign in the radical leftist policies eroding this nations core.  You want a socialistic lifestyle great, but it isn't happening hear any time soon!  It's going to take decades to get the Supreme Court to flip! 

Bumbling Joe only got 1 nomination cause they forced a sitting judge to retire for fear that when he isn't elected for a 2nd term and the presidency FLIPS BACK RIGHT!  They would get another conservative judge!

The next president will probably get to put 1 if not 2 more on the bench!  Oh if that is another conservative constitutional type judge that actually reads and interprets the law as written and not from a socialist point of view what Will you all do?  Are there enough coloring books and crying rooms to house you all?

I hope so for your fragile egos and souls!

Lastly this isn't a democracy we are a republic   There is a difference.

While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? "Constitutional" refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

There's an insidious and sinister agenda on the part of the government to instill fear in Americans in order to make us compliant as they slowly take away our liberty. It's both parties who have taken part in this and it's gotten worse since 9-11. All the while driving a stake of division between us where we are compelled to take a side.

Woke, Cancel Culture, mandates and war. Women against men, Black against White and humanity against humanity. Every war to use up old weapons so budgets are approved to replenish the military industrial complex.

We all need to wake up and understand what's going on here. Vote out any Republicrats who are out for themselves and to perpetuate an agenda of control and not the people. It's very disconcerting to have one party that is a coalition of special interest groups and the other who struggles to find an identity just to gain control over the other.

This thread is a microcosm of what is ubiquitous in our society. Why don't you simply find a common ground and work off of that instead of satisfying some basic need to win. When that happens, we all lose.