The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 25, 2011, 03:06 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
A comment on the post by blume357 ...

Obama may have some trickery up his sleeve for a second term as far as guns are concerned, he may not ...

but you can be sure that when (not if) an opening occurs on the Supreme Court during that second term, he will fill it with a leftist and Heller will be overturned at some point down the road with a 5-4 or 6-3 vote ... the next few justices need to be appointed by a conservative who will make sure they are pro-2A ... I don't worry about UN treaties, Mexican lawsuits or Brady baloney ... my eyes are on the Supremes ...
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus
bikerbill is offline  
Old December 25, 2011, 03:42 PM   #27
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,726
About companies and business - don't forget a fair number - SW, Colt and Taurus were ready to jump on the smart gun bandwagon beacause they saw a wave of mandated police replacements and that would knock down Glock. Also, there was some marketing research done that indicated there are folks who would buy a smart gun but wouldn't buy a normal gun. Some states would mandate smart guns and if you lived there, you would have to ditch your current one for a smart gun.

Before we go down the liberal vs. conservative fire storm - let's say we need progun rather than antigun folks elected. Don't need to referee that old fight.
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old December 25, 2011, 10:17 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,066
Even if SCOTUS turns anti-gun, there's no need for them to overturn Heller - even Heller allows for restrictions on gun ownership - it's just about broadening the context in which those restrictions can be applied. In other words, they can honor the language of Heller and gut its meaning and intent.

But let's hope it doesn't come to that. The likely window in which this scenario can occur is closing, hopefully...
csmsss is offline  
Old December 29, 2011, 03:37 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 196
In free states you can buy without a background check if you buy during a private transaction.

To me it matters little what the NRA did 40/50/100 yrs ago today they are useful for winning important Court cases, & keeping the heat on so folks know what the heck is going on, if that lady in NYC who got arrested for having a gun on her while visiting had checked with the NRA she would have known not to visit - Holder may be forced out due to NRA holding feet to the fire.

this stuff matters.

The public only knows that "silencers" are used by mobsters to "whack" people without anyone hearing it
R.I.P Sam "Trout" Barbetta
82nd Airborne, S.F biker, friend.
thrgunsmith is offline  
Old December 30, 2011, 04:03 PM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,167
I don't see the balance of SCOTUS changing much anytime soon. All of the five justice majority in Heller and McDonald (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) seem to be in good health and have given no indication of intent to retire soon. Ginsburg, on the other hand, will probably be replaced fairly soon as she's not in good health and hasn't been for some time, but she was part of the minority in both Heller and McDonald so replacing her with another anti-gun justice wouldn't change much.
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 30, 2011, 11:56 PM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,844

Problem is, it seems to me, that with Heller and MacDonald, we didn't get a "clean" ruling, though what we did get could have been much worse. As it is/was, the court said something, then screwed it up with "lawyer's talk".

In the last analysis, I suppose that that is what lawyers tend to do, which is a pity. Supposedly, lower courts are "going off half cocked" concerning the pandora's box of "reasonable restrictions", which the court neglected to define. In the end, looks like welfare for lawyers
alan is offline  
Old December 31, 2011, 10:23 AM   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,167
Alan, I agree that neither Heller nor McDonald were perfect, though I think they were a lot better than they could have been. My comments were more directed towards fears that President Obama would be able to change the balance of SCOTUS and get them overturned, something which I think is a pretty remote possibility.
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06671 seconds with 9 queries