Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, offers a roadmap of how to argue future cases involving the Second Amendment.
1 posted on 07/01/2024 4:40:09 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: marktwain

We need 7 of him on the Court.

L


2 posted on 07/01/2024 4:41:26 AM PDT by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

Property should never be confiscated…period! First off, what’s considered “a danger”? Reading a Bible? Yelling at a child? Losing your cool while driving?

Should we pass a law that getting an abortion can be taken away if you’re found “a danger to society”? I guess we should confiscate bats, hammers, crowbars and fists if someone is deemed a “danger”.

Thomas is right in his dissent.


7 posted on 07/01/2024 4:52:47 AM PDT by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
"individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment"

The Second Amendment denies government any authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

9 posted on 07/01/2024 5:13:06 AM PDT by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

I do agree with Thomas. If there’s enough of a concern to take away guns regarding alleged domestic violence, then file charges and prosecute. And jail those found guilty.

And please, no crying about how the courts are stacked against men. Keep your affairs regular and that possibility is minimized.


10 posted on 07/01/2024 5:16:15 AM PDT by Fury (I )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
Thomas argues the only correct conclusion: the law is unconstitutional as written because it does not require any due process or ability to contest the order before banning a person from bearing arms and carries substantial criminal penalties. The only historical analogue would be a requirement to post a bond.

The fact that there are so many concurring opinions shows how the remaining "conservative" justices weaseled out from the only rational conclusion following Bruen.

They know what the 2nd Amendment means, but simply refuse to enforce it like the rest of the Bill of Rights, so they still treat it as a stepchild, which does not bode well for the AW and magazine ban cases.

12 posted on 07/01/2024 6:34:41 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
So-called "Red Flag" laws are completely unconstitutional as the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.

Let's Red Flag every politician out there. Take their driver's license away so they don't use the car to harm someone. Take their silverware, shoe laces, string, rope, extension chords, candlestick holders, hammers, wrenches, cleansers, the drain plug on the bath tub, their toasters, scissors, pencils, etc.

18 posted on 07/02/2024 8:59:38 PM PDT by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson