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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court barrier to Joe Biden’s gun grab
Washington Examiner ^ | April 9, 2021 | Nicholas Rowan

Posted on 04/09/2021 8:59:42 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo

While President Joe Biden pushes for stricter gun control regulations, the Supreme Court is considering several Second Amendment cases with potentially major implications for gun ownership.

The case comes before the court as Biden ramps up the pressure for legislative action on gun rights. On Thursday, Biden signed a series of executive orders regulating firearms, and the White House signaled that his actions were “just the beginning” of a crusade against gun violence.

At the same time, the Supreme Court is weighing whether it will take up two cases that could clarify the limits of the Second Amendment. The first looks at the constitutionality of licenses to carry concealed handguns. The second examines the rights of convicted felons to own firearms. The court has both cases scheduled for its next Friday conference and could decide whether to hear them this month.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; armedcitizen; banglist; rkba; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: Mr. Mojo

Pfft! The Supreme Court needs no Constitution.


41 posted on 04/09/2021 9:59:42 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Always remember the Taney Court decided that blacks were not citizens because one of the right citizens had was “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Dred Scott vs Sandford

“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”

Paragraph 77 in the link below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html


42 posted on 04/09/2021 10:00:34 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ((Democrats have declared us to be THE OBSOLETE MAN in the Twilight Zone.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle
Here comes court packing

If I'm on the Supreme Court and determine that my vote is to be watered down with court packing I ask myself which way shall I go? I'am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal in the scheme of things? Is this what I aspired to? Packing should be un-constitutional and I want to see the SCOTUS ruling.

43 posted on 04/09/2021 10:07:16 AM PDT by Starstruck ( Since I'm old I don't whether I'm senile or brilliant. Or happily both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

And the people underestimating Biden merely because they hate him are as bad, if not worse, than the people who support him.

Being underestimated, thought senile, old, frail is a *wonderful* advantage over arrogant opponents. I think the biggest fools (in both the cognitive and moral sense) I know are the people who think him old, befuddled, merely a tool of Kamala and others; they are doing nothing but harm.

He’s dangerous, sly, and knows exactly how the game is played.


44 posted on 04/09/2021 10:15:36 AM PDT by RedStateRocker ("Never miss a good chance to Shut Up" - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

A Supreme Court that sanctions voter fraud is
to decide... I give up.


45 posted on 04/09/2021 10:16:51 AM PDT by Joe Bfstplk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

There is no Constitutional specification for the sized of the court, so expanding it (however dangerous or dumb) can’t be ‘unconstitutional’, the current count is just arbitrary and it could as easily be 3 or 30 people on there.


46 posted on 04/09/2021 10:17:17 AM PDT by RedStateRocker ("Never miss a good chance to Shut Up" - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

bump


47 posted on 04/09/2021 10:24:01 AM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

48 posted on 04/09/2021 10:25:27 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true, I have no proof, but they're true !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

reductio ad absurdum

Do better next time.


49 posted on 04/09/2021 10:29:04 AM PDT by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
There is no Constitutional specification for the sized of the court, so expanding it (however dangerous or dumb) can’t be ‘unconstitutional’

There is no Constitutional Specification for abortion and yet we have it. This involves 9 robes trying to save and elevate their phoney baloney jobs.

50 posted on 04/09/2021 10:29:21 AM PDT by Starstruck ( Since I'm old I don't whether I'm senile or brilliant. Or happily both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Different issue.

“Unconstitutional” has a specific meaning. I have no idea what a “Constitutional specification for abortion” could possibly mean.

Since there is no Constitutional specification for the size of the court, changing it - no matter how ill advised - can’t, by definition, be unconstitutional, simple logic.


51 posted on 04/09/2021 10:32:23 AM PDT by RedStateRocker ("Never miss a good chance to Shut Up" - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

You made me think of this, though :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M


52 posted on 04/09/2021 10:33:35 AM PDT by RedStateRocker ("Never miss a good chance to Shut Up" - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The Supreme Court?
In all matters before them, one bit of advice.
Don’t count on them.


53 posted on 04/09/2021 10:34:15 AM PDT by sjmjax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

Wipe them out. Wipe them all out.


54 posted on 04/09/2021 10:35:01 AM PDT by Noumenon (The Second Amendment exists primarily to deal with those who just won't take no for an answer. KTF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

My answer to your ridiculous hypothetical is that the Constitution itself contemplated Americans having fully armed WARSHIPS. See Letters of Marque in Article 1, Section 8.

Personally, I would draw the line at WMDs, but the Constitution does not say any such thing.


55 posted on 04/09/2021 10:39:45 AM PDT by zeugma (Stop deluding yourself that America is still a free country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The Unknown Republican

That’s the coward’s way out.


56 posted on 04/09/2021 10:41:02 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: The Unknown Republican

Oh, and you didn’t even use the term correctly.

Try again.


57 posted on 04/09/2021 10:42:02 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
I have no faith in the SCOTUS.
I have no faith in elections.
I have no faith that we even have a CinC right now.
I have no confidence in RINOs in Congress.
I have every confidence in the world that the Democrats and Media are in lock-step to destroy the Constitution.
58 posted on 04/09/2021 10:42:28 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

That’s not an answer. This isn’t a warship. This is a weapon that with the push of the button can wipe out 99% of humanity.

Why do you draw the line at WMD’s if the Constitution is silent about them?


59 posted on 04/09/2021 10:43:25 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

You bring up a good point about the Commander in Chief.

Wonder what the officer corps is thinking now. Those that are still loyal to the country.


60 posted on 04/09/2021 10:43:43 AM PDT by Texas resident (Dimrats=CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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