[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Justice Thomas Asks: Why Are Second Amendment Rights So Easily Taken Away?
Source: Forbes
URL Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel ... ts-so-easily-taken-away/print/
Published: Apr 2, 2016
Author: George Leef
Post Date: 2016-04-02 20:39:54 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bang List*     Subscribe to *Bang List*
Keywords: None
Views: 5502
Comments: 22


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “speak[s] truth to power” on gun rights, but unfortunately power couldn’t care less. (Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his silence during oral arguments. He has explained that he doesn’t think he learns much about a case that hasn’t already been covered in the briefs for the contending parties plus the numerous amicus briefs that explore many more aspects of the case. He prefers to listen and allow the lawyers to argue without further interruption.

Justice Thomas had not asked a question during oral arguments since 2006 when, during the arguments in Voisine v. United States on February 29, he posed a question to the government’s counsel, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein.

Immediately, the anti-Thomas press, always eager to portray the justice as a clueless incompetent (after all, he rejects most of the leftist notions about the role of government), indulged in nasty headlines such as “It Speaks!” Imagine the furor if a leftist icon were called “it.”

Exactly what is Voisine about and what did Justice Thomas ask?

The case deals with a seemingly dry question of statutory interpretation: Does a misdemeanor crime that requires only a showing of recklessness qualify as a crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S. Code Sections 921 (a)(33)(A) and 922 (g)(9)?

That latter part of the U.S. criminal code is known at the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a.k.a the Lautenberg Amendment, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It makes it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor ever to have anything to do with firearms: shipping or transporting them, owning or using them, even possessing ammunition.

One strike and you’re out under this law.

In the two cases from Maine joined in Voisine, the defendants had been convicted of reckless domestic violence misdemeanors and were later found in possession of firearms, leading to their prosecution for violating the federal gun ban. They moved to have the cases dismissed on the grounds that the Maine statute, under which someone can be convicted for intentional, knowing or merely reckless conduct isn’t covered by the Lautenberg amendment. The trial court ruled against their motions and they appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed with one judge dissenting. (If you want much more detail about the case, Rory Little’s post on SCOTUSblog has it.)

Ms. Eisenstein had just finished her argument that the First Circuit’s decision should be upheld when Justice Thomas spoke up: “Can you think of another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

Taken aback, she floundered for a reply and Justice Thomas interjected, You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which at least as of now is still a constitutional right.” Again, he put the question: “Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law?”

Ms. Eisenstein admitted that she knew of no other instance where a misdemeanor can have that effect, but tried this route of escape: “Other examples, for example in the First Amendment context, have allowed for suspension or limitation of a right to free speech or even free association in contexts where there is a compelling interest and risk associated in some cases less than a compelling interest under intermediate scrutiny.”

The exchange continued (you can read it in full here) for a while, but when Justice Thomas gets back to the First Amendment, he asks, “Let’s say that a publisher is reckless about the use of children…and it’s a misdemeanor violation. Could you suspend that publisher’s right to ever publish again?”

Eisenstein replies, “Your Honor, I don’t think you could suspend the right ever to publish again, but I think you could limit the manner and means by which…”

Justice Thomas: “So how is that different from suspending your Second Amendment right?”

Point made. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (which Justice Thomas ominously says is “at least for now” a right) is treated as being in a different class from the rest.

Of course, it should not be. In their amicus brief, Gun Owners of America state, “As a preexisting right, the right to keep and bear arms ought to enjoy the same stature as other inalienable rights, most notably, the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.” It ought to, but probably won’t. In fact, the right to keep and bear arms is apt to erode further unless, miraculously, another Second Amendment defender takes the seat of the late Justice Scalia.

Law professor Josh Blackman observes here that Justice Thomas was “speaking truth to power,” but unfortunately power couldn’t care less.

In all likelihood, a divided Court will affirm the First Circuit’s decision (a 4-4 split always affirms the lower court’s ruling). The defendants will have to stand trial and probably be convicted. The precedent will be set that any American who is ever guilty of even a “reckless” domestic violence misdemeanor will henceforth have to choose between owning a firearm – no matter how urgent his need for self defense — and a long prison term (up to ten years) and huge fine (up to $250,000) if caught.

Our so-called liberals who have no reason to fear for their own safety are intent on taking guns away from as many Americans as they possibly can. Justice Thomas can’t stop them without more help on the Court.


Poster Comment:

There's little doubt that a president Trump would try to push through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, and his transsexual date Ruby Giuliani.

(1 image)

Subscribe to *Bang List*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: hondo68 (#0)

There's little doubt that a president Trump would try to push through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, and his transsexual date Ruby Giuliani.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-02   21:33:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: hondo68 (#0)

I think Justice Thomas will become more active in the oral arguments going forward as the only conservative originalist and textualist left on the court .

"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato

tomder55  posted on  2016-04-03   7:11:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: hondo68 (#0)

"There's little doubt that a president Trump would try to push through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, and his transsexual date Ruby Giuliani."

Yeah. Hillary's choice would be better.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   9:57:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: All (#0)

We are in the time of this planet when we should be reading what God tells us in the Holy Bible. Here are a few verses very pertinent to our time.

2 Timothy 3New International Version (NIV)

"3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone."

This is the time when we must ask God to heal our nation and forgive our sins. Then, we must forsake our sins and do God's will.

Psalm 37

Don  posted on  2016-04-03   11:54:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: hondo68 (#0)

There's little doubt that a president Trump would try to push through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, and his transsexual date Ruby Giuliani.

Horseshit... There is no evidence whatsoever that a president Trump could succeed in pushing through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, or Ruby Giuliani.

Get a grip on your hyperbole. -- But in any case, if the SCOTUS and/or govt ever did try to ban firearms, -- they would not succeed...

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:03:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tpaine, hondo68 (#5)

Horseshit... There is no evidence whatsoever that a president Trump could succeed in pushing through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, or Ruby Giuliani.

Yeah, there is. He has been a registered Democrat for decades; his recent morph into a Republican cloak is further proof: he flip-flops on many issues.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-04-04   17:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: buckeroo (#6)

Horseshit... There is no evidence whatsoever that a president Trump could succeed in pushing through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, or Ruby Giuliani.

Yeah, there is. He has been a registered Democrat for decades; his recent morph into a Republican cloak is further proof: he flip-flops on many issues.

Where does he get the power to convince the Senate to consent to a gun grabber?

Calm yourselves, a Trump presidency will not be the end of the world.

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:21:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#7)

Calm yourselves, a Trump presidency will not be the end of the world.

Spit.

His presidency is the start of a new world for Americans: no guns.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-04-04   17:29:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeroo (#8)

Whatever

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: tpaine, buckeroo, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#7) (Edited)

Where does he get the power to convince the Senate to consent to

The first Republican president, dishonest Abe Lincoln threatened to jail the supreme court unless they ruled that the south must remain in the United States of Slavery. Well, they still are.

There's a long tradition of ignoring the constitution. There's little doubt that the scofflaw Republican and Democrat voters will elect another tyrant. It matters not what congress or the supreme court says, the sheeple demand a genuine D&R Crime Syndicate dictator, who will ignore the constitution and rule of law.

It's the American way.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-04-04   17:39:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: hondo68 (#10)

Rave on.

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:57:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine, tpaine, buckeroo (#11)

Rave on.

His so-called raving is dead spot in truth. The first POTUS to ignore the Constitution was.........wait for it..........Washington.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   18:54:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: hondo68 (#0)

There's little doubt that a president Trump would try to push through a justice who's a liberal gun grabber like his sister, and his transsexual date Ruby Giuliani.

Giuliani is not a transsexual.

Trump didn't put his sister on the courts.

There is plenty of doubt about what Trump would do. He has said flatly that he would look for a justice like Scalia.

Now consider the other Republican candidates. We already know what Jeb Bush's brother put up there (with the urging of the Establishment): the odious John Roberts.

But let's cut to the chase and face the truth: the only Republican in the race who has a prayer of beating the Democrat is Trump. He has a huge following. Cruz is favored by hard-core conservative Republicans, but he's very creepy and he alienates everybody else. If he manages to win the nomination, the Republicans will lose the election - and that means you will have Hillary Clinton and a Democrat Supreme Court - which means the end of gun rights.

Trump has spoken of defending the 2nd Amendment. He's spoken of putting judges up there like Scalia. You may not trust him, but that is what he is promising to do. And he's the only Republican nominee who can win.

So, with Trump you've got a fighting chance. With Cruz, you've got Clinton, and the end of the Second Amendment.

Your hatred for Trump is blinding you to the truth. Your only hope is Trump. So far, he has shown that he is very stubborn and pugnacious in standing up for himself. He has praised the second amendment and Scalia. There's a chance with him. There's no chance at all with the Democrats, and there's no chance at all with Cruz either, because Cruz will never be elected President, any more than B-1 Bob Dornan ever had a chance of being elected President. The hard, hard Right may have loved him, but the people were never going to vote for someone that extreme.

If the Republican Establishment steals it from Trump and gives it to Cruz or Jeb you've merely ensured Hillary, and that means the end of the 2nd Amendment. That's the truth.

With Trump, the Second Amendment will remain.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-04   22:32:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13, SOSO, hondo68 (#13)

With Trump, the Second Amendment will remain.

How? A Constitutional vestiage replaced by government decree and dogma?

buckeroo  posted on  2016-04-04   22:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Good post.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-04-04   22:57:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Trump didn't put his sister on the courts.

Yep. Ronald Reagan put Maryanne Trump Barry on the federal bench.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   23:16:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Your only hope is Trump

You may have convinced yourself that your only choices are suicide by Trump, Cruz, or Hillary. I don't have to make that lesser of evils decision, or choose any of them.

Voting for any of them, is just cheering Satan on to victory.

Trump is the least electable, since Jeb! dropped out. His disapproval numbers are amazing, and rising. The good news is that America will be spared from a Trump presidency.


Gone down in flames.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-04-05   0:23:44 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: hondo68 (#17)

I don't view Trump as some lesser evil. I positively, affirmatively, AGREE with him on key things:

- friendship and cooperation with Russia - even-handed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - tarriffs on China - The Wall - take down state walls to interstate insurance sales - sell federal land and use money to reduce the debt

I agree with all of that, and nobody else offers anything like it. Trump is no lesser evil to me. He's a godsend.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-05   8:25:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#13) (Edited)

You're as full of manure as (D-)rumpf is, Comrade.

"The Government's gonna pay for it"
--(D-)onald (D-)rumpf

Maybe you should post some stories about Bigfoot and UFOs?

At least your commie KGB Disinformationist predecessors were mildly entertaining in their renderings of state-established Ba'alshyte.

VxH  posted on  2016-04-05   10:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: VxH (#19)

You won't be voting for Trump. But you will be obeying the laws he gets passed and the regulations he imposes. Or Hillary.

And being so angry.

It's gonna be GREAT!

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-05   16:56:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

Bidness as usual for the Uniparty, Comrade:


Trump vs Sanders
RCP Average3/16 - 4/2----53.437.4Sanders +16.0
IBD/TIPP3/28 - 4/2819 RV3.55336Sanders +17
PPP (D)3/24 - 3/261083 RV3.04840Sanders +8
FOX News3/20 - 3/221016 RV3.05238Sanders +14
Bloomberg3/19 - 3/22815 LV3.45834Sanders +24
Qu innipiac3/16 - 3/211451 RV2.65238Sanders +14
CBS News/NY Times3/17 - 3/201058 RV4.05338Sanders +15
CNN/ORC3/17 - 3/20925 RV3.05838Sanders +20

 

Trump vs Clinton

IBD/TIPP3/28 - 4/2819 RV3.54735Clinton +12
PPP (D)3/24 - 3/261083 RV3.04841Clinton +7
FOX News3/20 - 3/221016 RV3.04938Clinton +11
Bloomberg3/19 - 3/22815 LV3.45436Clinton +18
Qu innipiac3/16 - 3/211451 RV2.64640Clinton +6
CBS News/NY Times3/17 - 3/201058 RV4.05040Clinton +10
CNN/ORC3/17 - 3/20925 RV3.05341Clinton +12
Monmouth3/17 - 3/20848 RV3.44838Clinton +10

VxH  posted on  2016-04-05   17:15:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: VxH (#21)

Sanders is a much better choice than Clinton!

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-05   17:27:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com