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: 6131
Comments: 22
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. 
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
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
Yeah. Hillary's choice would be better.
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
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...
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.
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. 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.
Spit. His presidency is the start of a new world for Americans: no guns.
Whatever
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. 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
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.
How? A Constitutional vestiage replaced by government decree and dogma?
Good post.
Yep. Ronald Reagan put Maryanne Trump Barry on the federal bench.
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. 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.
You're as full of manure as (D-)rumpf is, Comrade. "The Government's gonna pay for it" 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.
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!
Bidness as usual for the Uniparty, Comrade: Trump vs Clinton
Sanders is a much better choice than Clinton!
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.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
#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."
#4. To: All (#0)
#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.
#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.
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
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.
#8. To: tpaine (#7)
Calm yourselves, a Trump presidency will not be the end of the world.
#9. To: buckeroo (#8)
#10. To: tpaine, buckeroo, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#7)
(Edited)
Where does he get the power to convince the Senate to consent to
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#11. To: hondo68 (#10)
#12. To: tpaine, tpaine, buckeroo (#11)
Rave on.
#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.
#14. To: Vicomte13, SOSO, hondo68 (#13)
With Trump, the Second Amendment will remain.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
Trump didn't put his sister on the courts.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
Your only hope is Trump
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#18. To: hondo68 (#17)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
(Edited)
--(D-)onald (D-)rumpf
#20. To: VxH (#19)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Trump vs Sanders RCP Average 3/16 - 4/2 -- -- 53.4 37.4 Sanders +16.0 IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 819 RV 3.5 53 36 Sanders +17 PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 1083 RV 3.0 48 40 Sanders +8 FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 52 38 Sanders +14 Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 58 34 Sanders +24 Qu innipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 52 38 Sanders +14 CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 53 38 Sanders +15 CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 58 38 Sanders +20 IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 819 RV 3.5 47 35 Clinton +12 PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 1083 RV 3.0 48 41 Clinton +7 FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 49 38 Clinton +11 Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 54 36 Clinton +18 Qu innipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 46 40 Clinton +6 CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 50 40 Clinton +10 CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 53 41 Clinton +12 Monmouth 3/17 - 3/20 848 RV 3.4 48 38 Clinton +10
#22. To: VxH (#21)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]