Jump to content


Photo

Thomas speaks after 10 years and it is on a 2nd Amendment case


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
33 replies to this topic

#1 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 29 February 2016 - 11:43 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2...treak-question/

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...me-in-10-years/

 

Listening to the video clip, Justice Thomas wanted to know what misdemeanor crime took away any other Constitutional right?



#2 aerxx

    Μολὼν λαβέ

  • Members
  • 2,422 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 12:01 PM

He asked the Governments Attorney....

 

"Can you give an area of law where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right..?"

 

Then went back and forth with more questions.

 

Nice.


My favorite post.                      Blueroom IL House and Senate Feeds http://www.bluerooms.../video_page.htm

 

Applied w/ prints - 5/2/14

Approved - 5/3/2014

Active - 6/2/2014

Expires - 6/2/2019

In Hand - 6/6/2014 @ about 2:45pm CST

Wally Walk - 6/7/2014


#3 cherryriver

    Actual Member

  • Members
  • 1,362 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 08

Posted 29 February 2016 - 12:07 PM

Professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit suggests this is a sign the apocalypse has come.
What next, Justice Breyer reading from the Constitution?


Winter may change to summer, but the silly season goes on and on...

#4 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 29 February 2016 - 01:21 PM

is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument?


FOLLOW ME!


#5 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,891 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 01:41 PM

I wonder if it's because now that Scalia's gone, Thomas feels compelled to take up the task of asking the tough questions that Scalia would normally ask.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#6 stockboyy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 14

Posted 29 February 2016 - 01:46 PM

The Sentence Does Not Fit the Crime

  But it Does FIT a Political Agenda  (feel good law)



#7 ChicagoAtty

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:33 PM

is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument?

 

The arguments for the week are posted every Friday here:  http://www.supremeco...ment_audio.aspx



#8 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:38 PM

 

is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument?

 

The arguments for the week are posted every Friday here:  http://www.supremeco...ment_audio.aspx

 

so basically no I just have to wait until Friday lol. I was hoping because of the comments there was some sort of audio or transcript of it now.


FOLLOW ME!


#9 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,915 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 29 February 2016 - 03:03 PM

I wonder if it's because now that Scalia's gone, Thomas feels compelled to take up the task of asking the tough questions that Scalia would normally ask.

 

That would be my guess.  There used to be two members of the Supreme Court who truly believed in the US Constitution.  Now there is only one. :(  I saw this on fox news this morning.  Another +1 for Justice Thomas.  If only there were more like him!!!


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#10 WhiskeyRebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 15

Posted 29 February 2016 - 04:57 PM

And the liberals are complaining about it in force: http://thinkprogress...cant-have-guns/



#11 IH8IL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 05:35 PM

It is mostly bs. They keep adding bs misdemeanor laws that would take away our 2nd and honestly I'm suprised they can keep getting away with it.

#12 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,287 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 29 February 2016 - 05:45 PM

It is mostly bs. They keep adding bs misdemeanor laws that would take away our 2nd and honestly I'm suprised they can keep getting away with it.

 

 

Pretty much this. He makes a very very good point about the slowly "creeping" list of prohibiting crimes in regards to the 2A. If this was some Southern state trying to keep people from VOTING for misdemeanor DV it would be national news.



#13 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 February 2016 - 06:57 PM

It's gonna be very interesting to see how this turns out because, as pointed out by the petitioner's reply brief, Justice Kagan's opinion in Castleman explicitly (and I mean it there is absolutely zero ambiguity) states that the crucial element triggering the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence prohibition is the act must be deliberate in nature. There must be intent or it is simply not a crime that triggers the prohibition. Not a mens rea of recklessness which is the question here. There's a colossal volume of case law showing a crime such as a felony crime of violence such as battery or assault requires the act to be deliberate in nature or it doesn't (cannot) trigger the Lautenberg Amendment. It's impossible to batter someone without the intent to batter. Or charging someone with a crime requiring the mens rea of intent, yet nothing indicates that the person committed the Act with any intent, but recklessly (that's why we have statutes differentiating between homicide for intentional acts and manslaughter for reckless acts). It's paradoxical to say "this crime requires intent....unless no such intent exists." The Supreme Court should know since it's their own reasoning. Especially all of the liberals who signed onto Kagan's opinion in Castleman. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 29 February 2016 - 06:59 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#14 ChuangTzu

  • Members
  • 36 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 11

Posted 29 February 2016 - 09:55 PM

Transcript:

 

http://www.supremeco...-10154_5i36.pdf

 

It's pretty hard to follow at first...



#15 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 01 March 2016 - 08:23 AM

Interesting that they argued that the government had a "compelling interest" to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of citizens convicted of a misdemeanor crime.

It's the same argument they use when defending an AWB ("compelling interest"). It will be interesting to see how this one turns out on this topic.



#16 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 01 March 2016 - 09:44 AM

Could it be that we have awakened a sleeping giant?



#17 AFA

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 13

Posted 01 March 2016 - 09:57 AM

Could it be that we have awakened a sleeping giant?

 I hope we did , and we all know how that worked out for Japan.



#18 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:08 PM

Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#19 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:29 PM

Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

is there a source for this? I would love to read that.


FOLLOW ME!


#20 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 March 2016 - 01:23 PM

I'll try to hunt down the firsthand account. All the statements are basically hearsay (to use legalese). But this was (allegedly) discussed during a post-WWII "get together" in 1963 between American WWII vets and Japanese WWII vets. Someone had asked a Japanese officer why they didn't invade the mainland and he said because, not only was the populace armed to the teeth, but there were sponsored rifle matches, lots of people training, etc. In other words nothing like it is today. Said it wasn't worth the risk. Even though (IMO) the Japanese Army would probably have prevailed in the end due to our involvement on two fronts, not many military stateside equipped to handle something like that. I'm trying to hunt down the source but I've read the exact same account contained in multiple, unrelated documents. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#21 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 02 March 2016 - 01:34 PM

For you and others that were not alive then nor read up on WW2 look up a Japanese naval officer named Isoroku Yamamoto.



#22 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,089 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:29 PM

Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

is there a source for this? I would love to read that.

His wiki said it is likely he did not say this. See Quotes and misattributed

https://en.m.wikiquo...soroku_Yamamoto

#23 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:34 PM

 

 

Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

is there a source for this? I would love to read that.

His wiki said it is likely he did not say this. See Quotes and misattributed

https://en.m.wikiquo...soroku_Yamamoto

 

I had a feeling it was not true. if anything would have prevented them from doing this it would have been the lack of resources and people to actually takeover the whole continent. they are simply just to small and too far away to logistically invade the US.


FOLLOW ME!


#24 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,561 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:37 PM

Yea except we actually had a Navy back then whereas now, the Great Leader has gutted our entire military. Some Japanese Colonel said flat-out they considered invading the lower 48 but nixed that plan because of the Second Amendment. Said it would've been a bloodbath. So....let's disarm Americans because it's not like our rights actually saved us from the Axis. Saved us from God only knows what else. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

is there a source for this? I would love to read that.

His wiki said it is likely he did not say this. See Quotes and misattributedhttps://en.m.wikiquo...soroku_Yamamoto
I read this article and found it sort of funny that it said that there was no evidence in writing that he SAID so it can't be true. So if you don't put it in writing it wasn't said. Seems strange. Just saying. :) Having just written that and saying Just Saying I really didn't say it I just wrote it. Get my point? :frantics:

Edited by spec5, 02 March 2016 - 02:38 PM.

NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#25 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:39 PM

I read this article and found it sort of funny that it said that there was no evidence in writing that he SAID so it can't be true. So if you don't put it in writing it wasn't said. Seems strange. Just saying. :) Having just written that and saying Just Saying I really didn't say it I just wrote it. Get my point?

I think the issue they have is there's no documented proof besides people saying it happened. it wasn't in any news or anything. I see what you're saying though. I'm assuming there's little or no first had accounts of it.


Edited by EnCrypt, 02 March 2016 - 02:40 PM.

FOLLOW ME!


#26 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,561 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:40 PM

I read this article and found it sort of funny that it said that there was no evidence in writing that he SAID so it can't be true. So if you don't put it in writing it wasn't said. Seems strange. Just saying. :) Having just written that and saying Just Saying I really didn't say it I just wrote it. Get my point?

I think the issue they have is there's no documented proof besides people saying it happened. it wasn't in any news or anything. I see what you're saying though. I'm assuming there's little or no first had people that heard it said.

Come on now I wasn't being serious. :)

Edited by spec5, 02 March 2016 - 02:40 PM.

NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#27 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:43 PM

It is on the internet it has to be true.



#28 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:46 PM

i can not remember the number of books that I have read since the mid 1940s that have quoted the Admiral as making that statement.



#29 MSD

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:51 PM

Massad Ayoob made the same statement regarding Japanese intentions in the below article.  He apparently knew a Navy officer who was possibly present for the statement.

 

http://www.backwoods...terrent-factor/



#30 Colt guy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 13

Posted 02 March 2016 - 11:43 PM

I was watching some WW II program last night on Hero channel or some such station and i am pretty sure they did attribute that to Yamamoto.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.