Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ScubaDiver

Read Thomas’ actual and separate opinion (unlike Gorsuch, he did not “concur” with Kagan, as had his own reasoning). (his comments begin on page 27 of the link you provided).


3 posted on 06/10/2021 8:45:59 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wuli

Which of one’s Constitutional rights should be “infringed” upon conviction for/of a felony. Think about it please.
I am struggling to understand how, of all the rights enumerated, the ONLY ONE that is up for grabs is one’s Second Amendment right.
How can one be logically consistent regarding the RKBA on the one hand, and then taking that right away from someone who has a felony conviction?
I have not seen a convincing explanation.
Perhaps if convicted felons were allowed “constitutional carry”, ..... more people would realize that they are responsible for their own safety?
It is strange to realize there is a segment of society (one could even say, entire industries) that has an agenda that runs counter to the idea “you are responsible for your own safety”


5 posted on 06/10/2021 9:16:07 AM PDT by Honest Nigerian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli

I admire Justice Thomas.

He goes on to say that he agrees that the circumstances warrant a conviction on Felon in possession of a gun, but that the wrongly decided Johnson vs USA bound his hands. Since Johnson was ruled wrongly, he is bound by that ruling, and therefore he is left with interpreting the criminals acts as unintentionals.

So if Johnson vs USA had been ruled correctly, then Thomas would have upheld the conviction. Pretty interesting.


8 posted on 06/10/2021 9:55:09 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (America -- July 4, 1776 to November 3, 2020 -- R.I.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli

Right, but in the parlance of the Court, any opinion written by one who votes with the majority is known as a ‘concurring opinion.’ Justices write concurring opinions when they agree with the outcome settled upon by the majority but differ in the reasoning for that outcome. If he agreed with Kagan’s reasoning, there would be no need for a ‘concurring opinion;’ he’s ‘concurring’ with the outcome of the case not the reasoning.


10 posted on 06/10/2021 10:24:15 AM PDT by ScubaDiver (Reddit refugee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli
>> Read Thomas’ actual and separate opinion (unlike Gorsuch, he did not “concur” with Kagan, as had his own reasoning). (his comments begin on page 27 of the link you provided). <<

Roberts joined the liberals AGAIN! All thanks to deep stater GWB appointing him!!!! This is an outrage that the Bush crime family stuck us with this activist lib--

Oh wait... you mean it was TRUMP'S GUY, Gorsuch, who voted to the LEFT of Roberts... AGAIN?

Nothing to see here folks, now move along.

27 posted on 06/15/2021 9:54:01 PM PDT by BillyBoy ("States rights" is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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