Supreme Court barrier to Joe Biden’s gun grab

Washington Examiner ^ | April 9, 2021 | Nicholas Rowan

[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.

[Buttons12]

Oscar Hammerstein :)

[mass55th]

At this point, I wouldn’t count on the Supreme Court to follow anything, let alone the U.S. Constitution.

[zeugma]

You are a moron, and obviously not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but then, the two go together. '

I answered your question. The Constitution does not speak to the issue of WMDs at all, but as I said, it does speak to the issue of Letters of Marque, which implies something far beyond hunting rifles.

If you would like to amend the Constitution, there is a path spelled out in the very document to do so. You could probably garner quite a bit of support to the concept of banning WMDs from private posession.

[Purdue77]

Your question is moot. If Joe developed that power and being a sociopath then the 2nd A becomes irrelevant. If he used the weapon and eliminated 99% of the population then the Constitution becomes a dead document surpassed by the whims of a sociopath. By the way, anti-matter already exists. Harnessing it so it doesn’t annihilate matter is the problem.

The issue isn’t that he can create the weapon. The issue is his intent. If you know that his intent is to kill others then the 2nd A doesn’t apply. In affect, his intent would be the overthrow of a Constitutional government.

[lepton]

The Second Amendment has no limits.

---

Sure it does. Just not to direct violations of its text, such as arms capable of bearing, as Biden describes.

A reasonable bound is arms which if, properly used, are no more likely to hit a target other than that which it is aimed at than a shotgun.

[Enten]

What a silly hypothetical question.

[SJackson]

it does speak to the issue of Letters of Marque, which implies something far beyond hunting rifles.

And even today, even without a Letter of Marque, you can purchase a cannon for your boat. Or a field cannon for your home.

[itsahoot]

Packing the court.

Much simpler to just go full Andy Jackson.

[zeugma]

And even today, even without a Letter of Marque, you can purchase a cannon for your boat. Or a field cannon for your home.

Quite true. That is as it should be.

I am completely baffled why gun orgs never mention Letters of Marque.

[zeugma]

A reasonable bound is arms which if, properly used, are no more likely to hit a target other than that which it is aimed at than a shotgun.

I'd have to disagree with the 'reasonableness' of that. A Gatling gun likely wouldn't qualify. Same for most canon. Ditto for explosives.

[SJackson]

A little esoteric for most people. And like real automatic weapons, cannons firing shells have to be registered with the ATF as do the shells. A favorite example of Biden ignorance from the campaign, From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons. You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual. I'll retract that if Joe acknowledges he considers England as the legitimate government of the colonies during the Revolution, though there's probably no specific law, they wouldn't have allowed private cannons. Or flintlocks.

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm an absolutist. I think that inmates in federal penitentiaries should be denied guns. Inmates locked in to insane asylums should be denied guns. If someone is allowed to walk the streets, they should have a weapon without restrictions.

I will not quit the Second Amendment over a hypothetical anti-matter weapon. One can always come up with some hypothetical to justify tyranny -- "Hey, Hitler was right to try and kill all the Jews, because just imagine this situation ..."

Nope. I won't go there. I reject genocide, and I reject people who think the Second Amendment ought to contain a whole bunch of loopholes. I am an absolutist.

[COBOL2Java]

Two words.

John.

Roberts.

Yep. You gotta admit, the man enjoys his briefcases full of cash...

[GunRunner]

What are the current soft rules for pistol brace length of pull?

Asking for a friend.

[Dick Bachert]

[Sgt_Schultze]

The SC should take THIS opportunity to rule the “Full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution applies to the 2A as well. Those lawful carriers in one state may behave similarly in other states - exactly how homo marriage was introduced nationally. Your driver’s license is good nationwide, so should your firearm license.

[wastedyears]

The supreme court lol. The SCROTUS is useless, every single one throughout the country is a black-robed tyrant.

[oldasrocks]

Maybe someone should tell Joey that if he would just take the guns away from bad people this would be solved.

[The Unknown Republican]

Whatever, the point was still valid and your argument was not.

[TexasGurl24]

I never said what MY position was, clown. I posed a hypothetical to test the commitment. Morons don’t like tough questions because they don’t have the capacity to craft an intellectual defense of their position.