Posted on Jan 31, 2019
Supreme Court's conservatives appear poised to expand Second Amendment gun rights
976
59
14
16
16
0
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/31/supreme-court-poised-expand-gun-rights-after-decade-inaction/ [login to see] /
I see it as recovery, not expansion.
SGT Edward Wilcox, Lt Col Charlie Brown,
SSG Diane R., SPC Margaret Higgins,
CPT Jack Durish, Cpl Jeff N., LTC Charles Blake,
SGT (Join to see), SPC Gary Welch,
Maj Robert Thornton, CPL Douglas Chrysler,
Maj Marty Hogan, LTC (Join to see),
LT Brad McInnis,MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi,
PO1 John Johnson,MSgt David Hoffman,
COL Mikel J. Burroughs, CW5 Jack Cardwell
I see it as recovery, not expansion.
SGT Edward Wilcox, Lt Col Charlie Brown,
SSG Diane R., SPC Margaret Higgins,
CPT Jack Durish, Cpl Jeff N., LTC Charles Blake,
SGT (Join to see), SPC Gary Welch,
Maj Robert Thornton, CPL Douglas Chrysler,
Maj Marty Hogan, LTC (Join to see),
LT Brad McInnis,MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi,
PO1 John Johnson,MSgt David Hoffman,
COL Mikel J. Burroughs, CW5 Jack Cardwell
Supreme Court's conservatives appear poised to expand Second Amendment gun rights
Posted from usatoday.comPosted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
11
11
0
I concur it is recovering improper infringement of a right.
The manipulation is what disturbs me most. Specifically, this passage, "....director of legal action at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says if the rules were changed, 'it certainly would not be an issue worthy of the Supreme Court's consideration.'"
Deliberately changing laws that restrict rights for the sole purpose of avoiding a decision regarding whether the law violates our rights, leads me to infer that those who would do so believe that law violates our rights.
If they believed the law doesn't violate the Constitution, they would invite, no, demand a decision.
A firearm locked in a safe at home is of no value when your life is at risk outside of that home.
The manipulation is what disturbs me most. Specifically, this passage, "....director of legal action at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says if the rules were changed, 'it certainly would not be an issue worthy of the Supreme Court's consideration.'"
Deliberately changing laws that restrict rights for the sole purpose of avoiding a decision regarding whether the law violates our rights, leads me to infer that those who would do so believe that law violates our rights.
If they believed the law doesn't violate the Constitution, they would invite, no, demand a decision.
A firearm locked in a safe at home is of no value when your life is at risk outside of that home.
(11)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG (Join to see) It's an artifact of a common law legal system. On areas where the law isn't settled, we would want our case to be heard by sympathetic judges because once that precedence is set, it's set. Given a different court composition they may instead be very eager for their case to be heard.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford I understand why it is done, and I'm aware they fear setting a precedent.
My contention with passing a law that is designed to restrict rights, while lacking the moral courage to fight that law, leads me to infer they knew the law violates the Constitution and their intent was to knowingly and willfully deny me a right.
My contention with passing a law that is designed to restrict rights, while lacking the moral courage to fight that law, leads me to infer they knew the law violates the Constitution and their intent was to knowingly and willfully deny me a right.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG (Join to see) - I get you. It's pretty common practice though. We also find it with restricting abortion rights, voting rights, etc, etc as well; states shopping around for times with sympathetic judges and timing their legislation to match.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
1SG (Join to see) - It should be possible to penalize so-called "legislators" who are guilty of such proposing or supporting "laws", which you accurately describe as attempts " to knowingly and willfully deny me a right".
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
I agree. Back to where we were originally and intended to stay. That's recovery not expansion.
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
I agree. This is more about returning to the original words and intent of the 2A than "expanding" any rights.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google