Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by bignflnut »

I’m sure that you’ve already heard the incredible news.

Once again, there are five Justices -- supporting the pro-gun Heller decision -- who will sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate today (4/7/17), by a 54-45 vote, confirmed the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. And with his ascension to the high court, the Second Amendment will once again regain a pro-gun majority.

SNIP

Regardless, President Trump and Republican Senators kept their word to the American people in replacing Justice Antonin Scalia with someone in his likeness.

This is important from a Second Amendment perspective because there are several gun rights cases that are currently making their way through the court system.
Let's just place the marker here and remember what sold Gorsuch to the population.

With all the instances of surveillance and blackmail inside DC...who knows how Gorsuch will play his cards, or what he thinks about sitting in Antonin "Quick, No-autopsy" Scalia's former seat.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by M-Quigley »

I don't know how he'll actually vote, but I know what some in the anti gun crowd think about him. I called the husband of an anti gun liberal relative of mine (and a huge fan of Justice Ginsberg) to ask him something unrelated to this subject, and when the subject of her came up, he said that she was extremely upset. One of her favorite tv shows has a panel of women talking about current events, etc. It's like The View, but called something else, The Real I think he said. Anyway, it was only a few minutes into the show when NBC interrupted it with a special report. Her first thought was that evil rascally Trump got the US into a shooting war with Russia or something. What it ended up being was Trump speaking about Gorsuch just before he was sworn in. :lol:
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by WestonDon »

I don't believe Justice Gorsuch is either pro gun or anti gun. I do believe he is pro constitution. Which is beneficial to us and the way it should be. I have confidence that when the second amendment is applied as intended that our rights are intact, and that appears to be his guiding principle. We shall see how that "reasonable restriction" nonsense holds up.

Keep in mind that when anti gun proposals are distilled down to their root premise, every one of them requires redefinition of the second amendment. I think that would be contrary to his principles. Again, we shall see.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
Whirlwind06
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:50 am
Location: North East Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by Whirlwind06 »

I can pretty much guarantee that he is better then anyone that Clinton would have nominated.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by M-Quigley »

WestonDon wrote:I don't believe Justice Gorsuch is either pro gun or anti gun. I do believe he is pro constitution. Which is beneficial to us and the way it should be. I have confidence that when the second amendment is applied as intended that our rights are intact, and that appears to be his guiding principle. We shall see how that "reasonable restriction" nonsense holds up.

Keep in mind that when anti gun proposals are distilled down to their root premise, every one of them requires redefinition of the second amendment. I think that would be contrary to his principles. Again, we shall see.
The bolded is why some so called progressives hate the idea of someone like Gorsuch, not just because of gun issues or that Trump nominated him, as McCain suggested. The relative I mentioned believes strongly in the "Living Constitution" theory, not just for gun issues but for all issues. I've told her that if you don't like the Constitution there is a proper mechanism for changing it, but people like her feel they can't get their way in that manner. As an example, she was very happy when she recently sent me this on an appeals court decision r/t workplace protection for LGBT and the 64 Civil Rights act.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 100046514/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The decision illustrated the rift between judges who adhere to the Constitution and laws as written and understood at the time, and those who take into consideration judicial precedents and societal changes in the aftermath -- a debate playing out this week in the Senate over the Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Judge Diane Sykes, who was a finalist on President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, wrote the dissent. She accused the court of "an aggressive reading of loosely related Supreme Court precedents" in order to circumvent the legislative process.
"If Kimberly Hively was denied a job because of her sexual orientation, she was treated unjustly," Sykes said. "But Title VII does not provide a remedy for this kind of discrimination. The argument that it should must be addressed to Congress.

But Wood, who was considered for a Supreme Court nomination under President Barack Obama, said the ruling properly reflects "what the correct rule of law is now in light of the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretations, not what someone thought it meant one, ten, or twenty years ago."
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by M-Quigley »

Whirlwind06 wrote:I can pretty much guarantee that he is better then anyone that Clinton would have nominated.
If someone doesn't believe that, here is from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary- ... court.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.newsweek.com/if-hillary-clin ... urt-463140" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here's a liberal anti gun opinion from 2016

https://thinkprogress.org/what-would-ac ... d2a850e1d6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by bignflnut »

We may get to test these theories soon enough...
Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court on April 7 and this week will take part in deciding whether he and his fellow justices will hear the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which upheld California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry.

On February 13, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “good cause” requirement violated the Second Amendment.

SNIP

On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement by stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside of their home for self-defense.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by M-Quigley »

Since California doesn't allow open carry either, if concealed carry isn't a right, what does the "right to keep and bear arms" even mean? Bear arms just in your house? Crime doesn't just occur at home. Doesn't that conflict with the ruling in Illinois r/t cc?
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by WestonDon »

bignflnut wrote:We may get to test these theories soon enough...
Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court on April 7 and this week will take part in deciding whether he and his fellow justices will hear the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which upheld California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry.

On February 13, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “good cause” requirement violated the Second Amendment.

SNIP

On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement by stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside of their home for self-defense.
This has the potential to make "shall issue" the law of the land thruout the U.S. I can't wait. :lol:
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by M-Quigley »

WestonDon wrote:
bignflnut wrote:We may get to test these theories soon enough...
Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court on April 7 and this week will take part in deciding whether he and his fellow justices will hear the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which upheld California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry.

On February 13, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “good cause” requirement violated the Second Amendment.

SNIP

On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement by stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside of their home for self-defense.
This has the potential to make "shall issue" the law of the land thruout the U.S. I can't wait. :lol:
The key word being "potential." Not to throw cold water on it, but the last link I posted had this comment from Scalia in it.
That holding resolved a very real tension at the heart of the Second Amendment’s text, which provides that “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.” Yet the Court went much further than simply holding that this amendment protects an individual right. It also grounded the right in a far less textually apparent “right of self-defense.”
So far, great, but,
And Heller gave especially strong protection to handguns, which Justice Scalia’s majority opinion labeled “the quintessential self-defense weapon” and “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”
Of course carry, concealed or open, wasn't the issue in Heller, but if you take what Scalia said, the handgun is probably the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self defense outside the home as well, at least in most of the country outside of California. In fact probably more outside the home than inside, because some people rely on shotguns or rifles instead, but very few carry a long gun for walking around defense. Or as one woman told me once,

Image
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by schmieg »

M-Quigley wrote:Since California doesn't allow open carry either, if concealed carry isn't a right, what does the "right to keep and bear arms" even mean? Bear arms just in your house? Crime doesn't just occur at home. Doesn't that conflict with the ruling in Illinois r/t cc?
Justice Stevens once said in an interview that he believed in the Second Amendment, but he did not think that meant that people have the right to keep a handgun by their bed.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by WestonDon »

I have always thought that Scalia's opinion in Heller to be somewhat weasily worded. I have no idea of the inner workings of the supreme court, especially behind closed doors, but my speculation is that the final product of Heller was some sort of grand compromise. That's just my own opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by djthomas »

M-Quigley wrote:Since California doesn't allow open carry either, if concealed carry isn't a right, what does the "right to keep and bear arms" even mean? Bear arms just in your house? Crime doesn't just occur at home. Doesn't that conflict with the ruling in Illinois r/t cc?
If they agree to accept the case I'll be very interested in what the certified question is. You see, when the 9th circuit panel heard the case the fact that open carry is not allowed was part of it. However when the full court of appeals ruled they conveniently left that part of the question out and so only addressed concealed carry. They completely ignored the argument advanced by the plaintiffs that by also outlawing open carry their second amendment rights had been eviscerated and issued a ruling that appears far narrower than it really is.

I would hope that the plaintiffs could re-raise that issue before SCOTUS as it was the appeals court that recast the question when it issued its opinion.
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by schmieg »

WestonDon wrote:I have always thought that Scalia's opinion in Heller to be somewhat weasily worded. I have no idea of the inner workings of the supreme court, especially behind closed doors, but my speculation is that the final product of Heller was some sort of grand compromise. That's just my own opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.
My understanding is that Scalia had to scale back his opinion to get Kennedy to remain with him.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Gorsuch is Pro RKBA.

Post by M-Quigley »

Since the 7th circuit opinion r/t IL CC never need to be taken to SCOTUS, is anything from that decision relevant at all, or at least ammo for an argument to SCOTUS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In a 2-1 decision (Williams dissenting), the court reversed both District Courts' decisions and orders. Judge Posner, writing for the majority, notes that while the Heller and McDonald decisions did say that the need for self-defense is most acute inside the home, that doesn't mean it is not also acute outside the home. "Confrontations are not limited to the home".[4] The distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment, the court reasoned, implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period. The court also reasoned that this limitation would not have been rational as of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, because in what was then the Wild West - including the Ohio River Valley - settlers would have had to contend with native Indians, and such confrontations would be more likely, and more dangerous to an unarmed settler, outside the home rather than in. This negated the Defendants/Appellees' claim that the Blackstone writings and other documents of English origin pointed to a more castle doctrine-based interpretation of the Second Amendment as it would have been understood by the American colonists. While twenty-first century Illinois has no marauding Indian tribes, the threat, from gangs and street thugs, continues, and, says the decision, "a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower."
On a historical note, there was as much if not more danger to settlers from white people as well. The first mass murderers in American history were a pair of brothers in the late 1700's, and were only stopped when armed posses (mostly ordinary citizens) pursued and confronted them (with guns)

Here is something I wish all anti gunners could understand.
The decision also rejected the argument that the Illinois laws had an effect on gun crime, noting that Chicago's criminal element was undeterred by the ban on handguns overturned by McDonald.
Post Reply