Second Amendment in Clinton's cross hairs

Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
1,814
Likes
540
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
It's fair to assume the four Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court would be on board with overruling Heller (three of the four said as much in their dissents in a 2010 case). A Clinton appointee to the court would almost certainly have to share her views on gun control.
http://newsok.com/article/5524076
 
Typically the court doesn't hear cases on 'settled law' - however I bet that would be tossed out too.

So yes, it can be - if the justices decide to.
 
No, Heller will not be overturned outright. The Second Amendment will continue to protect and individual right.

BUT, don't expect to get any more protection out of it than we already have. A Supreme Court with Clinton nominees will, best case, continue to deny cert to most petitions that implicate the Second Amendment. At worst, they'll start taking 2A cases with the intent of limiting the right by ruling against on on things like carrying in public, sensitive places, prohibited persons, and arms in common use.

The core holding of Heller will remain. The court simply does not 180 degree turns on major issues very often and when they do they let generation pass between conflicting decisions.
 
Can Heller be overturned??

It can't be overturned, but it can be tweaked. For example, the general consensus is that Heller stands for the proposition that you have a fundamental right to a handgun in the home for self-defense. Another court could determine that self-defense only applies to defense against a zombie apocalypse, or that it's perfectly acceptable to place a $10,000 per round tax on ammunition.
 
The core holding of Heller will remain. The court simply does not 180 degree turns on major issues very often and when they do they let generation pass between conflicting decisions.
I wish I could share your confidence. Unfortunately, past performance is no indication of future performance under a Hitlery regime with multiple new partisan leftist ideologues on the court. It's a brave new world we are entering post-Scalia. Anything is possible... none of it good. [thinking]
 
No, Heller will not be overturned outright. The Second Amendment will continue to protect and individual right.

BUT, don't expect to get any more protection out of it than we already have. A Supreme Court with Clinton nominees will, best case, continue to deny cert to most petitions that implicate the Second Amendment. At worst, they'll start taking 2A cases with the intent of limiting the right by ruling against on on things like carrying in public, sensitive places, prohibited persons, and arms in common use.

The core holding of Heller will remain. The court simply does not 180 degree turns on major issues very often and when they do they let generation pass between conflicting decisions.

I wish I could share your confidence. Unfortunately, past performance is no indication of future performance under a Hitlery regime with multiple new partisan leftist ideologues on the court. It's a brave new world we are entering post-Scalia. Anything is possible... none of it good. [thinking]

I have to agree with Mr. Fudd. The doctrines of precedence are merely unwritten rules. Respecting the previous decisions of the court takes a knowledge, understanding and appreciation of history and precedence. Progressive leftists have proven over and over and over again that this doesn't mean jack shit to them.

Just look at the arrogant prick that currently occupies the WH. He has disrespected that office more than I could have ever imagined. Killary will only be worse.
 
No, Heller will not be overturned outright. The Second Amendment will continue to protect and individual right.

BUT, don't expect to get any more protection out of it than we already have. A Supreme Court with Clinton nominees will, best case, continue to deny cert to most petitions that implicate the Second Amendment. At worst, they'll start taking 2A cases with the intent of limiting the right by ruling against on on things like carrying in public, sensitive places, prohibited persons, and arms in common use.

The core holding of Heller will remain. The court simply does not 180 degree turns on major issues very often and when they do they let generation pass between conflicting decisions.

I hope you are right- but our government has crossed the line time and time again. Nothing is as it should be anymore. I have zero faith in the three branches of government that have become a fully autonomous organism whose sole purpose is to feed itself, grow, and stay in power.
 
I hope you are right- but our government has crossed the line time and time again. Nothing is as it should be anymore. I have zero faith in the three branches of government that have become a fully autonomous organism whose sole purpose is to feed itself, grow, and stay in power.

Yes, I have to agree with that. The only reason we are not a commie dictatorship now is the 2nd Amd.
I have no doubt that an over turn of Heller will give H a "legal" reason to begin a pilot confiscation program. They really believe there will be little or no resistance. We must convince them that they are wrong by any means.
 
No, Heller will not be overturned outright. The Second Amendment will continue to protect and individual right.

BUT, don't expect to get any more protection out of it than we already have. A Supreme Court with Clinton nominees will, best case, continue to deny cert to most petitions that implicate the Second Amendment. At worst, they'll start taking 2A cases with the intent of limiting the right by ruling against on on things like carrying in public, sensitive places, prohibited persons, and arms in common use.

The core holding of Heller will remain. The court simply does not 180 degree turns on major issues very often and when they do they let generation pass between conflicting decisions.

I guess that I'm one of the pessimists, too. SCOTUS doesn't need to overturn Heller/McDonald; just water them down making them meaningless. Maura will show them how to do it.

OTOH, the Republicans are saying that they will continue to block any Clinton appointees and just leave the Court with 8 jurists. Nothing in the law says it needs to have 9 jurists. The Republicans are getting tough now! [rofl]
 
I hope you are right- but our government has crossed the line time and time again. Nothing is as it should be anymore. I have zero faith in the three branches of government that have become a fully autonomous organism whose sole purpose is to feed itself, grow, and stay in power.

My assessment isn't optimistic at all. The fact is that the Supreme Court, even when it changes direction, goes out of it's way to avoid contradicting themselves. It took them 58 years to reverse Plessy and that was a really extreme and unconscionable decision to begin with. If SCOTUS were inclined to easily reverse themselves we very likely would have seen Roe overturned in the last 20 years.

I'm actually very pessimistic because as far as the courts are concerned the Second Amendment is in limbo for the foreseeable future. Even with a majority of so-called conservatives, the court was showing no stomach for adding to their Second Amendment jurisprudence. What I think will happen going forward is a lot of lower court decisions in places like Massachusetts and California upholding 'reasonable' regulation on the exercise of the Second Amendment with the Supreme Court continuing to deny cert except in extreme cases such as Caetano. The SJC's decision in Caetano was a blatant effort to ship away at Heller by directly contradicting the majority opinion, and SCOTUS wasn't going to let their authority be undermined in such a blatant way.

An obvious path to the Supreme Court - circuit splits - is pretty much closed off to us because Second Amendment cases only arise in a very small number of states. The result is that most of the circuits are silent on the issue because lawmakers are NOT trying to limit this set of rights.

Where we are picking up momentum is in the states. Eleven states now are 'constitutional carry' and Utah may join that list next year. That's pretty much 25% of the states! Nationwide, public opinion is trending strongly in our favor even though some states continue to be outliers. It may be a couple of decades, but the courts will eventually catch up.
 
BUT, don't expect to get any more protection out of it than we already have. A Supreme Court with Clinton nominees will, best case, continue to deny cert to most petitions that implicate the Second Amendment.
Heller and McDonald are advisory opinions at best. A LTC is the only vehicle with which one may buy and possess a handgun in the DRPM, however, the MA SMC (Supreme Marsupial Court) has ruled that since an LTC allows carry, it is not constitutionally protected - even though it is required to exercise a constitutional right. Unless SCOTUS grants cert to a case appealing it, that is the final law of the land in MA and Heller rights do not exist here.
 
If 7/20 taught us anything, its that the rule of law is gone, done, dead, finished.

The left completely ignores the Constitution all the time. Why would far-left progressive justices embrace it? Lately the court has been twisting itself into a knot to try and justify stupid shit like Bl-Obamacare! Why do you think that they wouldn't do the same thing with Heller and McDonald?

Look at Kagan and Sotomayor and imagine two (or four) more like them on the court. Do you really think that Heller and McDonald will survive because of precedent and tradition? Really?!
 
My assessment isn't optimistic at all. The fact is that the Supreme Court, even when it changes direction, goes out of it's way to avoid contradicting themselves. It took them 58 years to reverse Plessy and that was a really extreme and unconscionable decision to begin with. If SCOTUS were inclined to easily reverse themselves we very likely would have seen Roe overturned in the last 20 years.

I'm actually very pessimistic because as far as the courts are concerned the Second Amendment is in limbo for the foreseeable future. Even with a majority of so-called conservatives, the court was showing no stomach for adding to their Second Amendment jurisprudence. What I think will happen going forward is a lot of lower court decisions in places like Massachusetts and California upholding 'reasonable' regulation on the exercise of the Second Amendment with the Supreme Court continuing to deny cert except in extreme cases such as Caetano. The SJC's decision in Caetano was a blatant effort to ship away at Heller by directly contradicting the majority opinion, and SCOTUS wasn't going to let their authority be undermined in such a blatant way.

An obvious path to the Supreme Court - circuit splits - is pretty much closed off to us because Second Amendment cases only arise in a very small number of states. The result is that most of the circuits are silent on the issue because lawmakers are NOT trying to limit this set of rights.

Where we are picking up momentum is in the states. Eleven states now are 'constitutional carry' and Utah may join that list next year. That's pretty much 25% of the states! Nationwide, public opinion is trending strongly in our favor even though some states continue to be outliers. It may be a couple of decades, but the courts will eventually catch up.

Conservative justices may not agree with Roe v. Wade, but they respect the precedent and tradition of SCOTUS not overturning (contradicting) itself but only in extreme cases. The far-left progressives don't GAF about any of that. The ends justify the means. They will twist and turn like a pretzel to get the desired result.

Don't forget this was a 5-4 decision. Justice Stevens dissent in Heller:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
 
Last edited:
If 7/20 taught us anything, its that the rule of law is gone, done, dead, finished.

The left completely ignores the Constitution all the time. Why would far-left progressive justices embrace it? Lately the court has been twisting itself into a knot to try and justify stupid shit like Bl-Obamacare! Why do you think that they wouldn't do the same thing with Heller and McDonald?

Look at Kagan and Sotomayor and imagine two (or four) more like them on the court. Do you really think that Heller and McDonald will survive because of precedent and tradition? Really?!
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Horrible again." Oh Damn! [laugh]

Don't forget this was a 5-4 decision. Justice Stevens dissent in Heller: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
That is one awfully scary read... and Hitlery's stated interpretation as well. [thinking]
 
The court simply does not 180 degree turns on major issues very often and when they do they let generation pass between conflicting decisions.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was reversed less than 20 years later by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Perhaps this is the kind of thing that the antis are hoping for.

That was 17 years and that's also about the same length of time between when AWB94 resulted in a stinging defeat for the Democrats in the '94 midterm elections, and 2012 when the newspapers started hammering on mass shootings as a way of ginning up more support for gun control. One of the mutterings on the anti- side is that "It's not 1994 any more."
 
The post-Heller world seems to be one where Heller, in reality, has little material impact. Anti-gun states have pushed their agendas forward (eg., NY) and pro-gun states have done the same (e.g., MO). Mag limits, AWBs, carry limits, specific gun bans (e.g., Mass's list and non-list restrictions), etc., are going to fly if that is what the people want. In this way, Heller means next to nothing. Ban states will ban, free states won't. If NY's laws can stand, or the Mass AG's declarations can stand, then there is essentially no meaningful limit on what governments can do to limit access to guns, mags, etc. It's all just politics and the will of the people.
 
NO NO NO! She has the second amendment in her Cross-EYES!
Csx8TFnWIAA1Mi1.jpg:large

I think her eyes are that way from concentrating on the rolled up $100's she had up her nose to make sure she snorted every last drop of coke
 
You will be welcomed to bear arms... as long as they are single shot muzzle loaders which were around at the time of the revolution, which you will be told is what our forefathers intended.

Forgot to mention... these will also have to be MANUFACTURED during that era as well
 
Back
Top Bottom