Jump to content

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


bmyers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

is there anywhere to actually listen to the whole argument?

 

The arguments for the week are posted every Friday here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_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:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...