Good question, this is a step in the right direction but since they all voted for it, might be too easy to circumvent? Hopefully with the swamp draining, the snakes will be cleared out shortly.
With respect, I have to ask whether you actually read the opinions as they are issued? If you’ve been reading them, you will conclude that this court is the most predictable in at least a decade or so. In particular.... which justice might you have expected to vote the other way, and which of their opinions/concurrences/dissents led you to believe that they would vote that way?
Sure we could’ve guessed how this one would go (though I am pleased there wasn’t even one dissenter, even though this would be blatantly unconstitutional but hey), but on other topics, as individuals, they’ve kind of been all over the place.
For example? Can you name a case in which this court has ruled differently than you would have expected from the justices’ previous opinions/dissents/concurrences? There are a few, but compared with some previous courts this one has been a model of consistency.
I get what you’re saying, but again, I don’t mean the rulings of the court as a whole, just individual Justice’s opinions. The random general Leftist having a “right” opinion or a Conservative “siding with the left.”
I think all the rulings as a Court have been consistent with what you would expect. I haven’t been surprised.
Really you’re right, and I think I’ve seen some more actual Constituional opinions recently than recently and previously.
I’ve just been mildly surprised a couple times on some individual opinions, but then again I’m only familiar with the history of about half of them.
There it is right there. They are desperately trying to figure out a way to circumvent the 2nd and only scrape past the 4th. Why? Because when they finally do away with the 4th if we are still armed we WILL fight back. You gotta take the guns away first... then you can throw away all the other rules.
This is the problem in UK right now. Very few firearms means the police/gov just do whatever the hell they like. They police speech and make insane WuFlu rules. Does anyone seriously believe if 30+ million UK citizens(half... 2011 census 63,182,178) owned an AR and hand hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo combined that the UK police would be doing the stupid shit they are doing right now? Hell no. They would be terrified of a massive uprising.
There is a reason why they still have NG "securing" DC. They are terrified we will 1776 their asses strait into a noose. And we have the fire power to do it.
Thanks for your perspective, I enjoyed it. Made me think of something I’ve contemplated a few times though.
I like the Brits and the Irish, they have strong blood. They’re not afraid to have a scuffle or skirmish with the police, especially when they’re in numbers and having fun haha.
But the UK police are mostly unarmed too. Would the citizens push back if the police were armed and willing to fire? Would the police be as intrusive if the people were armed?
I’ve always liked the quote “An armed society is a polite society.”
The UK police have teams that function sort of like our SWAT teams. They are armed. So if say 10-20 guys got together armed up with hunting rifles and really stood up to them they would end up slaughtered. Same thing with fighting them hand to hand. The police break out the fire hoses and less lethal stuff making it impossible to win the fights that matter.
Now compare that to the Bundy Ranch standoff. a few hundred people half of which were armed tot he teeth sent 50+ HEAVILY armed Federal agents home with their tails between their legs without a shot being fired. Everyone their on both sides knew it didn't matter who won the fight... if just one shot was fired and someone got hit every rancher for 500 miles was going to end up with a rifle in his hands. All hell would have broken lose. So the feds left. They were utterly defeated. And later in court Bundy won most of his cases. Sure they got stupid later, but that's another story.
The Bundy's were in the right that one time and they got some popular support so they won. You think that would happen in the UK? Don't delude yourself. In the UK the little guy gets no support from his neighbors other than lip service and just gets crushed by the system. The gov controlled media doesn't talk about it, and anyone that's too loud on social media catches a charge of some kind, but you know its happened. No one helps that poor farmer out because they all feel helpless. Why? Because they have NO power even close to what the government has. They don't have guns. Even if they do its a double barrel 12 gauge or a bolt action rifle with enough ammo to just get themselves killed.
The government is in charge and doesn't fear the people AT ALL. Why should they? Throw in a little election fraud and they are not free. Its all an illusion. Its slavery with invisible chains.
The 4th helpz protect the 2nd. But what will they accept in order to issue a warrant??? Can't be someone pissednof ex claiming bullshit so they issue anwarrant? We aren't out of the woods.
I am a law abiding citizen of the United States of America. I have and will faithfully follow every legal law of this Nation, the State of Michigan and my municipality. I do not advocate violence nor do I tolerate criminality in myself, my family, my neighbors or my peers.
That said, they will have to take my guns out of my cold, dead hand because the only reason they would have to take it is to unlawfully deny me my Constitutional rights. And I will not stand for that. At all. Ever.
9-0? That actually surprises me. Makes me wonder if each judge came to this decision because of their stances on the 4th or 2nd amendments, or maybe they were just anti-police.
9-0? Almost makes me wonder if that odd story about Pence getting shot in the chest resisting arrest was true. Something or somebody put the 'fear of the Lord' in SCOTUS?
It's cool that someone thought the govt. COULD seize your guns without a warrant, .... and even succeeded in getting the Supreme court to actually hear that case
They don't. And vicar is still priest, human and fallible. Nowhere does it say that in normal communication is he speaking for Christ, that's as common a myth as the idol worship myths, used commonly by heretics to mislead about dogma.
Q said our guns are safe. This was a direct threat.
Q #969 & #919
I think we might need them more than ever.
So what does that mean for the "red flag " laws? Seems it would still be easy for them to just get the warrant?
Good question, this is a step in the right direction but since they all voted for it, might be too easy to circumvent? Hopefully with the swamp draining, the snakes will be cleared out shortly.
Yes, a good step in the right direction.
Weird court. Completely unpredictable, and that is not a good thing.
They seem to be sticking to cases that have a SCotUS Precedent. or a closely related case. not really taking any risk....
With respect, I have to ask whether you actually read the opinions as they are issued? If you’ve been reading them, you will conclude that this court is the most predictable in at least a decade or so. In particular.... which justice might you have expected to vote the other way, and which of their opinions/concurrences/dissents led you to believe that they would vote that way?
Also how I interpreted that.
Sure we could’ve guessed how this one would go (though I am pleased there wasn’t even one dissenter, even though this would be blatantly unconstitutional but hey), but on other topics, as individuals, they’ve kind of been all over the place.
For example? Can you name a case in which this court has ruled differently than you would have expected from the justices’ previous opinions/dissents/concurrences? There are a few, but compared with some previous courts this one has been a model of consistency.
I get what you’re saying, but again, I don’t mean the rulings of the court as a whole, just individual Justice’s opinions. The random general Leftist having a “right” opinion or a Conservative “siding with the left.”
I think all the rulings as a Court have been consistent with what you would expect. I haven’t been surprised.
Really you’re right, and I think I’ve seen some more actual Constituional opinions recently than recently and previously.
I’ve just been mildly surprised a couple times on some individual opinions, but then again I’m only familiar with the history of about half of them.
No, which is why they passed red flag laws.
SCOTUS might see the writing on the wall, butt saving time.
Or, like Loquitur_Veritatem said, may not matter, may be an easy way to circumvent in the future so they dont care.
As we know for pretty sure the SCOTUS is corrupted and compromised, these two seem most likely.
In Other News Today: The number of boating accidents drops dramatically over the 2021 summer.
Lol I like that one
So you can abuse the 2nd amendment. But only if you dont abuse the 4th to do it.
There it is right there. They are desperately trying to figure out a way to circumvent the 2nd and only scrape past the 4th. Why? Because when they finally do away with the 4th if we are still armed we WILL fight back. You gotta take the guns away first... then you can throw away all the other rules.
This is the problem in UK right now. Very few firearms means the police/gov just do whatever the hell they like. They police speech and make insane WuFlu rules. Does anyone seriously believe if 30+ million UK citizens(half... 2011 census 63,182,178) owned an AR and hand hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo combined that the UK police would be doing the stupid shit they are doing right now? Hell no. They would be terrified of a massive uprising.
There is a reason why they still have NG "securing" DC. They are terrified we will 1776 their asses strait into a noose. And we have the fire power to do it.
Thanks for your perspective, I enjoyed it. Made me think of something I’ve contemplated a few times though.
I like the Brits and the Irish, they have strong blood. They’re not afraid to have a scuffle or skirmish with the police, especially when they’re in numbers and having fun haha.
But the UK police are mostly unarmed too. Would the citizens push back if the police were armed and willing to fire? Would the police be as intrusive if the people were armed?
I’ve always liked the quote “An armed society is a polite society.”
The UK police have teams that function sort of like our SWAT teams. They are armed. So if say 10-20 guys got together armed up with hunting rifles and really stood up to them they would end up slaughtered. Same thing with fighting them hand to hand. The police break out the fire hoses and less lethal stuff making it impossible to win the fights that matter.
Now compare that to the Bundy Ranch standoff. a few hundred people half of which were armed tot he teeth sent 50+ HEAVILY armed Federal agents home with their tails between their legs without a shot being fired. Everyone their on both sides knew it didn't matter who won the fight... if just one shot was fired and someone got hit every rancher for 500 miles was going to end up with a rifle in his hands. All hell would have broken lose. So the feds left. They were utterly defeated. And later in court Bundy won most of his cases. Sure they got stupid later, but that's another story.
The Bundy's were in the right that one time and they got some popular support so they won. You think that would happen in the UK? Don't delude yourself. In the UK the little guy gets no support from his neighbors other than lip service and just gets crushed by the system. The gov controlled media doesn't talk about it, and anyone that's too loud on social media catches a charge of some kind, but you know its happened. No one helps that poor farmer out because they all feel helpless. Why? Because they have NO power even close to what the government has. They don't have guns. Even if they do its a double barrel 12 gauge or a bolt action rifle with enough ammo to just get themselves killed.
The government is in charge and doesn't fear the people AT ALL. Why should they? Throw in a little election fraud and they are not free. Its all an illusion. Its slavery with invisible chains.
The 4th helpz protect the 2nd. But what will they accept in order to issue a warrant??? Can't be someone pissednof ex claiming bullshit so they issue anwarrant? We aren't out of the woods.
Well i always thought it was the 2nd amendment that helps protect all your other rights. if you know what i'm saying...
I am a law abiding citizen of the United States of America. I have and will faithfully follow every legal law of this Nation, the State of Michigan and my municipality. I do not advocate violence nor do I tolerate criminality in myself, my family, my neighbors or my peers.
That said, they will have to take my guns out of my cold, dead hand because the only reason they would have to take it is to unlawfully deny me my Constitutional rights. And I will not stand for that. At all. Ever.
As recognized by the Supreme Court in 1999. WE are sovereign citizens superior to the corporation of the United States.
This is encouraging.
9-0? That actually surprises me. Makes me wonder if each judge came to this decision because of their stances on the 4th or 2nd amendments, or maybe they were just anti-police.
Q 969 & 919
They've been up for years
9-0? Almost makes me wonder if that odd story about Pence getting shot in the chest resisting arrest was true. Something or somebody put the 'fear of the Lord' in SCOTUS?
What? When did that story come out? I haven’t seen anything about it.
Pence got shot!? I haven’t seen anything yet
The fact we need them to rule on that is the real problem. What is the point of the 4th in the first place?
Maybe to stop rouge paid off sheriffs..
9-0 ... if we ain't in control I'll eat my hat.
Ok...so this is a real article and not Babylon Bee! Wow!
How do you get a warrant?
Judges.
Basically they all just agreed on job security...
It's cool that someone thought the govt. COULD seize your guns without a warrant, .... and even succeeded in getting the Supreme court to actually hear that case
I feel safer now
Wonder if guns will be selling more briskly now
Just like it does not matter who votes, but who counts the votes. It will not matter who needs a warrant, but who issues the warrant.
George Soros has entered the chat....
So what are they going to bend over on? They don't just magically do this without having some kind of agreement beforehand.
Contrary to myth, Catholics don't swear allegiance to popes.
They don't. And vicar is still priest, human and fallible. Nowhere does it say that in normal communication is he speaking for Christ, that's as common a myth as the idol worship myths, used commonly by heretics to mislead about dogma.