If there is a better area for this post, great.
Sounds about as hopeful as one could wish for.
'Past cases show Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has sided with non-violent felons’ right to bear arms, and against police unwarranted police searches of lawful carriers'
Link to the Fox news article-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/where- ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where Barrett stands on 2A.
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:27 am
- Location: Central Ohio
Where Barrett stands on 2A.
"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."
Thomas Sowell, Knowledge And Decisions
Never forget and Never again, Molon labe
Thomas Sowell, Knowledge And Decisions
Never forget and Never again, Molon labe
-
- Posts: 16229
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: Where Barrett stands on 2A.
Thanks for sharing. I started to read the comments, then realized as much fun as that might be, I'd rather go outside and play.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
- Location: NW Ohio
Re: Where Barrett stands on 2A.
The LefTistS REFUSE to meet with her pre-vote, ask questions. Questions like, ''have you changed your positions in the last couple years, when you were confirmed to your current judgeship, your judgeship?''
Just attempting to derail the nominee. While not wanting to meet they simultaneously want to debate the whole thing, like, you know, like....20 years.
Spoken louder then words, those action things.
And that's good enough for me.
Just attempting to derail the nominee. While not wanting to meet they simultaneously want to debate the whole thing, like, you know, like....20 years.
Spoken louder then words, those action things.
And that's good enough for me.
Acquisitions thus far:
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-
- Volunteer
- Posts: 8135
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
- Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
- Contact:
Re: Where Barrett stands on 2A.
Sen Blumenthal seemed to score on Barrett yesterday discussing Kanter (felons and possession/RKBA)
Of course he was saying she spoke of this as being "radical" in her dissent, but the remark was made in a speech to a college audience:
Why don't Senators ask fundamental questions regarding granting cert or the proper role of the judiciary. I've been heartened to hear that political will and the task of SCOTUS are not related at all. However, does Barrett believe judges can be recalled? What basis would be appropriate for that? Granting Cert is one of the more important decisions of the justice...how would she weigh granting cert?
Of course he was saying she spoke of this as being "radical" in her dissent, but the remark was made in a speech to a college audience:
The fiction of Prohibited Persons regarding inalienable rights needs to be struck down...whether or not Barrett is the one to lead that charge is yet to be determined, but I'm not holding my breath.We did look it up, and Blumenthal was wrong.
Nowhere in the entire text of Kanter does the word “radical” appear. (Blumenthal clearly had not read the case.)
The source for Blumenthal’s quote appears to be a BBC article about Barrett’s views:
Speaking about her dissent to students at Hillsdale College last year, Judge Barrett said while it “sounds kind of radical to say felons can have firearms”, she found no “blanket authority” to take guns away from Americans without showing the individual was a danger.
Viewed in context, where Barrett was explaining a concept to students, Barrett was arguing that while it “sounds” radical to say that “felons” should be able to own firearms, a legal analysis would show that it was not radical to separate non-violent felons from violent felons.
Why don't Senators ask fundamental questions regarding granting cert or the proper role of the judiciary. I've been heartened to hear that political will and the task of SCOTUS are not related at all. However, does Barrett believe judges can be recalled? What basis would be appropriate for that? Granting Cert is one of the more important decisions of the justice...how would she weigh granting cert?
“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
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