# Supreme Court To Consider Assault Weapons Ban?



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

The author brings up valid concern about a potential hearing going the wrong way and validating state efforts to ban assault type weapons as being not covered by the 2nd amendment per the SCOTUS. What are your thoughts?



> If they take it up, I predict they will sustain the constitutionality of such a ban. First of all, look at the makeup of the court. It has five outright communists (including Kennedy), a collectivist in conservative dress (Roberts), two more fairly unreliable "conservatives" (Scalia and Alito), and only one true conservative (Clarence Thomas).
> 
> Second, they won't even have to turn to their own proclivities to find their decision. It's embedded in Heller itself.


The Captain's Journal » Supreme Court To Consider Assault Weapons Ban?


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Molon Labe


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Chipper said:


> Molon Labe


Of course, but any other thoughts?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." - George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves&#8230;and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms&#8230; "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention

The founders, and those that followed them, were not unclear on the 2nd Amendment, and were well-minded of the citizenry owning military arms.
Just because technology has advanced, that does not excuse our necessity to remain on par with our standing army. The founders greatly feared a standing army, and considered the militia(the whole population of able bodied men) to be superior to the nation's defense. However, when a standing army was necessary, they believed the people should be able to withstand such if a time came when they would be used to usurp the rights of a free people.
My "evil black rifle" is only my FIRST step in re-balancing the power scale. More should be available. Less is NOT an option.


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

Cold Dead Hands anybody?.....I can see any type of firearms ban at this time in the history of the world and the USA,it would go down pretty doggone ugly.I cannot and will not state that there would be many dead bodies.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

A possible ban on future manufacture, yes. 

Confiscation of current guns, unlikely.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

From a states rights perspective the Federal government has not right regulate any sort of arms or destructive devise. It is the purview of the individual states. But since this view was discarded long ago with a top down Federal enforcement upon the states of amendments, it would not be logical to allow individual states to make such decisions, let alone counties, townships or municipalities. Yet they do legal cheetah flips to justify laws such as Obama care.


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Agree. They would get about 5 raids in and realize they are in way over their heads.

I'd venture to say raid number 6 they'd go in and have a big surprise waiting for them when they came out.

Just my own humble opinion.



Operator6 said:


> A possible ban on future manufacture, yes.
> 
> Confiscation of current guns, unlikely.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm afraid it's going to get a lot worse before it gets much better. Hopefully this coming election we'll be able to at least slow some of the bleeding down. I guess we'll see the common sense/crazies ratio then?


----------



## Tennessee (Feb 1, 2014)

Moonshinedave said:


> I'm afraid it's going to get a lot worse before it gets much better. Hopefully this coming election we'll be able to at least slow some of the bleeding down. I guess we'll see the common sense/crazies ratio then?


Dave,

I only know of one of the candidates running for president that was at the congressional hearing fighting for our gun rights after Sandy Hook and that was TED. The rest you will have to trust with faith. I think the most of them will negotiate your rights away if it helps their needs. Even R Reagan.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Just remember, the next president, whoever that may be, will be appointing two or more Supremes.
Elections have consequences.
I'm going to vote for the republican nominee, no matter who it is, even Trump. Because the alternative - Hillary or the communist, will spell the end of the Republic.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Just remember, the next president, whoever that may be, will be appointing two or more Supremes.
> Elections have consequences.
> I'm going to vote for the republican nominee, no matter who it is, even Trump. Because the alternative - Hillary or the communist, will spell the end of the Republic.


I think the same as you do.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

They should have indited the Clintoons, Holder, and half of Congress if they did their jobs.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> They should have indited the Clintoons, Holder, and half of Congress if they did their jobs.


The Supreme Court indicts nobody. That is not part of the job of the Judicial Branch of our government.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Didn't they refuse to take this case? I remember something about Clarence Thomas being upset over the court not taking the case and saying something to the effect that the 2nd amendment is becoming a 2nd class right.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Sorry you are right RPD.

But when the executive branch places criminals at the control what to do?

Congress is impotent and useless.

We can't change that as MEDIA controls staged debates and who gets coverage, and IMHO all voting has been rigged for MANY years.

Rubio the RINO scored way too high, and there cannot that many* idiots* in Iowa to take a criminal ( H-Beast) over the socialist.

What do Americans have for a choice? At this point I'd vote for Micky over them all.

3rd Party has to rise or there will be a revolt, to make our constitusion the LAW, which all including judicial, elected, and executive criminals must follow.It is but the CRIMINALS don't care.

Or NWO take over and our nation will be done.

Peace be with You


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Mad Trapper said:


> Sorry you are right RPD.
> 
> But when the executive branch places criminals at the control what to do?
> 
> ...


Our Government has always been dirty, it didn't take Patrick Henry very long to speak of smelling rats.

I still think we're being manipulated by the powers to be//politicians to what ends I don't know. All I know is fear is a powerful tool in getting what you want. Make them afraid that we're taking their guns then when all seems lost offer them a deal that lets them keep them but they have to give up some more privacy or freedom. Something similar happened to a town near where I live, the mayor wanted to raise taxes so he threatened to shut down a popular city park saying it cost too much then wham tax raise and the park stayed open.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Good you have done that

You still have that mayor? Hope not.

Crimnals in power are not my like. Not LE, not JE, and not SOTUS. Got that LE and JE?


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Just remember, the next president, whoever that may be, will be appointing two or more Supremes.
> Elections have consequences.
> I'm going to vote for the republican nominee, no matter who it is, even Trump. Because the alternative - Hillary or the communist, will spell the end of the Republic.


Easy to agree with you here, while I have my preference, I'll gladly support whoever gets the republican nod over the two democratic candidates.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Actually I think there are like 4 potential spots on the bench in the next 8 years. The next president could be pivotal to the 2nd.
Bernie Sanders was surprisingly against national gun control. But then again, he is senator from Vermont, where it has always been legal to CCW with no permit or licence required.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

If SCOTUS takes up the AWB I can almost guarantee they will allow some sort of prohibition. "It is the responsibility of the people to throw off such Government and to establish a new Government." means I get the good toys. It also means that I, as a US Citizen will take no action against my Government for light or transient reasons. I will be eternally vigilant (That is the cost of freedom after all) and I will vote and use the Democratic process and abide by the wishes of the majority of my countrymen whether I agree or not. When the GOVERNMENT itself acts in contravention of the will of the people and outside the consent of the Governed in furtherance of tyranny, I will take the action I am required by the constitution to take. So in short, SCOTUS....We are watching. You do not make law, you interpret it. You have also been pulling some real shenanigans lately.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Actually I think there are like 4 potential spots on the bench in the next 8 years. The next president could be pivotal to the 2nd.
> Bernie Sanders was surprisingly against national gun control. But then again, he is senator from Vermont, where it has always been legal to CCW with no permit or licence required.


I'm thinking it is party dependant. The liberal judges will retire if one of the socialists wins to ensure another generation of bs. Giving them 4 spots. If the R wins they will stay on until forced out by disability or death, but you won't see 4 judges retired voluntarily. JM2C


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." - George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union
> 
> "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves&#8230;and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms&#8230; "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18
> ...


Excellent post. I quoted you just to repeat the lesson and pat you on the back.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Hillary has already floated the idea of appointing Obama to the Supreme Court if she is elected.
To be eligible for the court, one does not have to have been a judge, nor even a lawyer.
Obama on the Supreme Court - let that sink in for a minute.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> "It is the responsibility of the people to throw off such Government and to establish a new Government."


I prefer this viewpoint:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to *abolish it*, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

They had better be careful with this, and yes, the next president could get to appoint as little as 2 and much as 4 justices.
This could be a pivotal election in our nation.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I could suggest that a revolution of sorts has already been fought and won, not on the battlefield but rather, in the voting booth. Millions of illegals and liberals looking for free shit have already turned this country into a socialist state and clamoring for more if you listen to the numbers on Sanders. I am not sure the tide can be turned given the normal channels. They must, and will, continue to come after the guns to solidify their power. The next 5 years, maybe 10, may very well decide if this country exists as the framers intended.


----------

