Court Packing Threat over 2A issues

[Robert]

The site is moderated to be reactionary

Well, no. We do not allow pure speculation or hysteria. What gets threads closed, more often than not, is members inability to follow the few simple rules we have. Be civilized, don't get personal, attack the argument not the poster, no religion, and no broad spectrum politics are pretty much it. But that seems too difficult for a great many folks to follow.

Every. Single. Time. I let a thread that is important stay open I hope that folks will abide by the spirit of THR and every single time I end up locking it because it becomes a mess. So if you, or anyone else, is not happy with the way things are handled, don't blame the janitor. I just sweep up. Blame the folks that can't stay inside the lines. And if it's so bad you feel the need to go someplace else then we wish you the best.

I would love to see discussion of important topics without emotions taking over or the use of broad spectrum politics. Sadly, all anyone seems to want to do is shout how all Democrats are evil. No doubt, one side of the aisle is actively trying to hinder our rights. But there are more than a few gun owners that are Dems. We need all the allies we can get right now. Sure, some dem gun owners would sell out in a heart beat. But some are not. But yeah, let's shout about politics in an already overly politicized world. I'm sure that'll end well.

Got a specific bill, proposal, or politician that you'd like to talk about? Go for it. But stay on that topic. We seem completely unable to stay focused. Going totally off topic accounts for a good number of threads getting closed.

Many people come here for information and education. Based on some of the threads and posts I see I'd tell them to run and never look back. We are our own worst enemy. Maybe we are too heavy handed, maybe not. THR staff will keep up the high standards until Derek tells us otherwise. It's a big internet out there, if this is not a good fit I'm sure somewhere else might work out better. No hard feelings. THR isn't for everyone.

 

[FFGColorado]

I would love to see discussion of important topics without emotions taking over or the use of broad spectrum politics.

Present company excepted but this needs to be followed by 'some'(one?) moderator as well...

Sadly, all anyone seems to want to do is shout how all Democrats are evil.

Or, because of a policy or decision that the 'poster' didn't agree with, start calling people in Federal Government(including Supreme Court Justices) insulting names.

 

[danez71]

Well, no.

Well, yes. See the quote I posted, twice.

We can waste all the ban width you want if you require more examples of similar statements.

I can understand that in the legal section but the general seems like it should be ok if consistently moderated. Seems others agree.


Maybe this just needs clarification as there seems to be sense of disparity noted by a couple posters in this thread such as just above.

Present company excepted but this needs to be followed by 'some'(one?) moderator as well...

THR staff will keep up the high standards until Derek tells us otherwise.

Well, hopefully he knows. Does he know what the civility is like on NTT? It's said here by mod types it's held to the same standard as THR but several members have stopped going there because of the lack of civility.

As far as leaving, I don't plan to as there is a lot of firearm knowledge here.

However, as far as "the advancement of RKBA", it's being moderated out in favor of ' after its passed, then we can discuss ' as commented by a mod in this very thread.

So if you, or anyone else, is not happy with the way things are handled, don't blame the janitor. I just sweep up.

Seriously? I thought mods moderated and were more than a sweeping janitor.

 

[Robert]

I can only speak for me. But the biggest problem I run into is folks posting news articles about proposed legislation and then we get mired in a discussion of the article not the legislation. News articles are next to useless for anything other than alerting us to proposed legislation or issues. Posting the actual legislation for discussion is far more helpful. I am perfectly fine with that.

If you are having issues with a specific mod or staff member then I'd suggest you contact them directly.

 

[danez71]

I can only speak for me. But the biggest problem I run into is folks posting news articles about proposed legislation and then we get mired in a discussion of the article not the legislation.

I do agree with that.

 

[kalielkslayer]

So I’m rather new here. But other than the knowledge here, one thing I’ve noticed and appreciate is the civility. I can “roll on the grass” with the best of them, but prefer to be civil. THR has been a breath of fresh air for me.

Yet I agree with those that feel it necessary to have discussions about pending litigation or legislation BEFORE it happens. I feel, if one political party was to have its way, there would be no more need for THR, or anything firearms related discussions anywhere.

Yet, as the Moderator states, if we just cite facts, with sources, it’ll be allowed.

 

[rust collector]

I come here to avoid the partisan strife, conspiracy theories, recrimination and wailing so prevalent in headlines, pandering news providers and social media. Seems like there should be a few havens where we can eschew the blame games, speculation and strife.

We can read the account elsewhere, discuss in the appropriate fora, do our own analyzing and not keep moderators busy with whack-a-mole or hall monitoring. Greater emphasis on politics is a great way to alienate and divide people who come here to learn more about firearms and our way of life.

 

[WestKentucky]

Political landscape is currently too close for anybody to take any significant risks in alienating anybody on any serious front. It’s also polarized and primed for fighting that nobody really wants with exception of a few members too green to realize what they are asking for, or too naive to understand the repercussions that forced actions might have.

Speaking specifically about the 2nd amendment and attacks on gun owners, there are a whole bunch of gun owners who are new to the “club” and I suspect that the mentality will change with that. I expect feature bans or capacity limits but an all out assault on guns in general has implications nobody truthfully wants to see. They may play the used car salesman to get what they want but we all know how that goes. One side wants X and the other side wants Y and they settle in between. Starting crazy just might land the compromise closer to your argument.

 

[CapnMac]

posting news articles

Which is not helped by the present ineptitude demonstrated by too many in the Press.
We humans also often reflexively revert to less-polite reactions to things we see as existential threats.

What is an existential threat can be pushed out of proportion by bad, erroneous, less-than competent journalism (and by deliberately slanted journalism, both slanted "for" or "agin" us). See most of the wasted electrons swirling around HR-127.

Packing the Court is likely a red herring as well. First off, it's a political unknown. Justices do not blindly follow the political diktats of who appointed them. Some do, but not all.

Would it be 'bad' for we in the firearms community? That's as unsure as would it be good for us, too. Which means for those entirely focused on political ends must also give pause before committing to such action.

Excellently pointed out above, we really ought focus on these things before they become law. The problem there is in the blizzard of potential paper thus generated, and trying to winnow through that to the real thorns rather than the imagined ones. Much of that information devolves upon the press, which gets us back to the problems with our 'modern' press, per above.

 

[DocRock]

Several statements have been made that suggest that there are "allies" within the Democratic Party that will work to protect the rights of US gun owners. Nobody has responded to my request to name five Democrats at the federal level who renounce the the Democratic Party platform on restriction of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The statement has been made that the Democratic Party is not monolithic. Below is an excerpt from the 2020 Democratic Party Platform outlining the Party's position on gun control. I am unable to see the part, section, or phrase within that statement that suggests the Party is in any way allied with gun owners. I am unable to find any reporting which suggests this list of severe restrictions on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms gave rise to any disagreement or debate when adopted as the official platform of the Democratic Party. If there is evidence to suggest that there is significant dissension within the Party over this platform, I would welcome its presentation. This is the current Democratic Party's position on gun control in their own words:

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal47background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Let us note some of the more salient points:

1) Universal background checks. They mean that every transfer of a firearm shall require a NICS check.
2) The prohibition of any and all on-line sales of guns and ammunition.
3) "Closing the Charleston loophole" means ending the 3 day limit on non-response by the NICS system to a background check. They demand that there is no limit on how long the federal government can delay a transfer based on non-response to the request.
4) Prohibit the manufacture and sale of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines. Based on legislation voted into law by several Democratic legislatures, "assault weapon" may mean any semi-automatic firearm. Based on legislation voted into law by several Democratic legislatures, "high capacity magazine" may mean any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
5) Support for licensing requirements to own firearms. This is de facto registration.
6) Support for extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. This means the removal of one's right to keep and bear arms without the right to trial.
7) Will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. Based on legislation voted into law by some Democratic legislatures, this means a requirement to store guns in the home in a manner that, at best, heavily limits their accessibility and use for home defense.
8) Repeal of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Democrats seek to remove reasonable liability protection for firearms manufacturers to render it financially impossible to manufacture and sell firearms.

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...emocratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf

This is the Party Platform adopted in 2020. If those who insist there are allies to American gun owners among Democrats could point to any senior Democrat who opposed adoption of this plank in the Party Platform, I would appreciate it.

I appreciate the lack of non-firearms political content on the High Road. I do not understand and, based on the positions adopted by the Democratic Party, reject the assertion that there is bi-partisanship with regard to protecting the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Party's official platform, adopted without any notable dissent, directly endorses infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not "an opinion"; that is factually stated in their official position. I have no objection whatsoever to "keep it civil". But the statement that the Democratic Party actively seeks to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second amendment is not an opinion, view, or slur; it is a statement of their official position.

And there is no separation between Official Party Platform and actual activity by the Party’s members:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ntrol-acts-tomorrow-contact-your-reps.885131/

 

[danez71]

Some good posts above that prompt me to clarify something.

I don't want to talk about 'politics' at THR.

I just want us to able to talk about RKBA issues happening within the political party organizations and be able to name the organizations.... and do it before it's past tense. The R's haven't always been our friend either.

My preference/suggestion....
If/when, as @Robert says, people cant stay in their lane, then don't let a few bad apples spoil THR mission. Warn and temp ban them as the rules state.

 

[GEM]

What folks refuse to get in these conversations are discussions of not whether the platform is truly antigun. It certainly is. Nor are there outspoken gun advocates among the Democrats for our kind of RKBA. The discussion is whether the practical politics of the times will bring these ideas to fruition.

There is quite a bit of writing that the practical difficulties of beating the filibuster and some purple area Democrats will impede bring these bills to fruition and implementation. They won't get passed the Senate unless enough Republicans join in or the filibuster is removed. If you follow this kind of thing, there is Senatorial and presidential opposition to removing the filibuster.

Thus:

If those who insist there are allies to American gun owners among Democrats could point to any senior Democrat who opposed adoption of this plank in the Party Platform, I would appreciate it.

- is not reality as NO one says that.

The other strand is that they will pack SCOTUS such that if such bills did pass, they couldn't be challenged. That threat was made in the NYC case and Scotus backed off and found it moot. There is no spine in Justice Roberts when it comes to the RKBA. He is probably an enemy from most analyses. However, most analyses think packing the court is an empty threat also.

Thus, to be clear - we discuss the practical issues that will come up. We do not think there are strong gun rights allies in the Democrats. Do people understand that? These practical issues mean that hair on fire speculation might be something to generate uproar but it has to be looked at realistically. Thinking every time that something like 147 comes up, guns WILL be banned is just a waste of time.

 

[wbm]

There is no spine in Justice Roberts when it comes to the RKBA.

Think so. He seems to be mostly "get along go along".

FDR tried to "pack the court" in 1937. Almost accomplished it.

 

[GEM]

That experience seems to have dampened enthusiasm for trying it again. Folks realize that such games come back to bite them. Harry Reid changing the rules of judges (which he was warned against) gave the GOP an easier time with Scotus. Oops. Thus, a packing for or against gun rights must be looked at realistically. Interesting that when the GOP had the House, Senate and Presidency - they did not leap at abolishing the filibuster to pass some gun rights bills. They couldn't wait to drop the bills that were out there after a rampage. The NRA says the GOP had enough on board to pass sweeping bans after Las Vegas along with the Presidency but they diverted him with bump stocks.

If the 5 progun justices truly have fire in the belly for the RKBA, they will take a real and not peripheral case. Now this is pure speculation, I grant you but speculating horror shows leads to speculating on more realistic outcomes.

 

[DocRock]

What folks refuse to get in these conversations are discussions of not whether the platform is truly antigun. It certainly is. Nor are there outspoken gun advocates among the Democrats for our kind of RKBA. The discussion is whether the practical politics of the times will bring these ideas to fruition.

There is quite a bit of writing that the practical difficulties of beating the filibuster and some purple area Democrats will impede bring these bills to fruition and implementation. They won't get passed the Senate unless enough Republicans join in or the filibuster is removed. If you follow this kind of thing, there is Senatorial and presidential opposition to removing the filibuster.

Thus:

If those who insist there are allies to American gun owners among Democrats could point to any senior Democrat who opposed adoption of this plank in the Party Platform, I would appreciate it.

- is not reality as NO one says that.

.

Because the Democratic Party is not a monolith. We have allies among certain Democrats. So if we proceed on a crusade against all Democrats we alienate supporters at a time when we need Democrat votes in chambers held by thin majorities.

We keep bipartisan and focus on the facts and we work to gain supporters from both sides of the aisle.

That sums up my thoughts on this matter precisely.

Bold added by me.

That's two people saying that, including a moderator.

The Democratic Party opposes the status quo right of Americans to keep and bear arms and supports a range of measures designed to strip those rights from citizens. Pretending that this is not the case doesn't change that fact. I believe it is entirely possible to recognize that fact while pursuing relevant, civil discussion of legislation and regulation.

 

[GEM]

The current leadership of the Democratic Party does not push gun rights. However, polling shows that a significant number of regular folks who are Democratic party members do support gun rights. Thus, generic denouncing of all who are Democrats isn't useful. This is the common issue that there are other issues than gun rights which are equally important to some. One would want to convince Democratic politicians that practical considerations should moderate their actions.

 

[Ru4real]

Just working within my own knowledge of the Constitution, I envision a scenario where a political party passes legislation increasing or decreasing the number of justices, and the opposition party files a lawsuit that makes its way to the Supreme Court.

That’s the way it will go down. The Supreme Court will either take the case, or not. I’d bet they take the case. Why?

.....we’ve had more than 9 and less than 9 justices in the past....so what?

In the last 30 years we’ve witnessed the harassment, by Congress, of Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Do you really think the Court will allow the Congress to play with their house if they don’t want it?

The court, or a part of the court, may want more than 9 justices. But I bet the Court’s preference is to tell Congress where to go based on the last 30 years.

Congress isn’t filled with fools. “Court Packing” was used to draw up support and get voters to the polls in November.

 

[DocRock]

...Congress isn’t filled with fools...

Our experiences differ significantly

 

[Old Dog]

In the last 30 years we’ve witnessed the harassment, by Congress, of Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Do you really think the Court will allow the Congress to play with their house if they don’t want it?

In the past 30 years, we've learned that trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do -- and who will rule how -- is a fool's game.

Congress isn’t filled with fools.

Words escape me.

 

[danez71]

One would want to convince Democratic politicians that practical considerations should moderate their actions.

How does convincing them to to moderate thier future actions jive with waiting until after its done to discuss?

Also, if and when the court is packed or an AWB is passed on the Federal level, we can discuss it

 

[old lady new shooter]

Treats of court packing started over the pending NY gun laws being invalidated.

Per the article several Dems in Washington sent a letter directly to SCOTUS with a thinly veiled threat.

When it got a lot of criticism for the threat and the concept, they later accused the sitting president as doing it with Barrett* which did increase support (according to polls) for the Dem party to pack the court as a way to counter.


*While the timing of Barrett's nomination and confirmation could be game for debate, the court packing arguement was intellectually dishonest as she was filling an existing vacant seat rather than filling 1 of several newly created seats intended to be filled by a new sitting president of the same party & ideals.






Not being able to discuss the source of the majority of threats to the 2A - the mission of this site - is short sighted and is knee-capping this site, imo.

They get shut down as political or speculative etc

In Strategies & Tactics (which is not the mission of THR) its often mentioned to identify potential physical threats, anticipate actions, and prepare for them.

But we can't really do that for pending legislative threats (speculative) or for the source of the threat (political) which are actually attacking the mission stated by THR.


They say it can't be done... however TFL seems to manage to allow some degree it.

Oddly, some of the same mods/staff/admin are on both sites.

They also say the owner doesn't want it..... However, if you like the owner of this site and want to help generate more ad revenue, NTT is available if you don't mind much lower civility standards.

Treats of court packing started over the pending NY gun laws being invalidated.

Per the article several Dems in Washington sent a letter directly to SCOTUS with a thinly veiled threat.

When it got a lot of criticism for the threat and the concept, they later accused the sitting president as doing it with Barrett* which did increase support (according to polls) for the Dem party to pack the court as a way to counter.


*While the timing of Barrett's nomination and confirmation could be game for debate, the court packing arguement was intellectually dishonest as she was filling an existing vacant seat rather than filling 1 of several newly created seats intended to be filled by a new sitting president of the same party & ideals.






Not being able to discuss the source of the majority of threats to the 2A - the mission of this site - is short sighted and is knee-capping this site, imo.

They get shut down as political or speculative etc

In Strategies & Tactics (which is not the mission of THR) its often mentioned to identify potential physical threats, anticipate actions, and prepare for them.

But we can't really do that for pending legislative threats (speculative) or for the source of the threat (political) which are actually attacking the mission stated by THR.


They say it can't be done... however TFL seems to manage to allow some degree it.

Oddly, some of the same mods/staff/admin are on both sites.

They also say the owner doesn't want it..... However, if you like the owner of this site and want to help generate more ad revenue, NTT is available if you don't mind much lower civility standards.

Well...

I am not a moderator, so I don't get to make decisions about what is or is not allowable.

I think stating my opinion ought to be acceptable, so here it is:
1. Discussing proposed legislation per se should definitely be acceptable, and is completely valuable without getting into who proposed or co-sponsored it.
2. Discussing firearms-related planks of any party's political platform ought equally to be acceptable, PROVIDED it doesn't degenerate into "Oh those stupid XYZ's, of course they propose that."
3. Tarring everyone who votes for one party or another should be off-limits, because
A. Some people who vote for a party whose platform opposes 2nd Amendment rights may be voting for that party for other reasons higher on their personal priority list. Consider that a 2nd Amendment supporter who is a member of such a party is in a better position to influence that party to be more 2A-friendly, because they can start the conversation with "I am a registered ___ and I believe we should better support 2A rights for the following reasons."
B. Attracting new people to the shooting sports and/or persuading them that they are their own first line of defense is an important way to cement 2A rights because we increase the percentage of the population who support same. Demonizing people for belonging to a specific political party is a really bad way to make friends and influence people.
C. Many people who observed the events of last summer but never previously considered becoming gun owners woke up and decided they needed to do that, which is why gun sales went off the charts and ammo is so hard to get. Don't we want to help these folks out by supplying the philosophical foundation for their decision?

 

[old lady new shooter]

And there is no separation between Official Party Platform and actual activity by the Party’s members:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ntrol-acts-tomorrow-contact-your-reps.885131/

They can propose all the laws they want. But they can't convert their proposals to law without a vote. For this reason it is critical to express our opinions to our state and federal representatives so they understand the positions of their constituents, as I suggested in the thread I started which you cite. Complaining here that party X is terrible for proposing Y does nothing to stop Y from getting passed.

Also, definitely get involved with your state citizens defense league. They work to pass laws for your state that can protect you against whatever the federal folks dream up that we would consider unreasonable. Specifically AZ, TX and other states are currently working on passing laws that effectively make their states what Gov Abbott calls a "Second Amendment Sanctuary State". The current AZ proposal says any new laws or regulations infringing on our RKBA will be null, void, and unenforceable in the state of Arizona, specifically citing laws outlawing currently legal weapons or magazines, etc.

 

[JN01]

During the Presidential campaign, Biden repeatedly refused to answer whether or not he wanted to expand SCOTUS. In January, he started a commission on reforming Federal courts, including SCOTUS. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/biden-supreme-court-reform-463126
It may not happen, but it sure seems like he is at least considering it.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Some stuff he does I think is to make his left wing think he's working on something they want, when in reality he's burying it. Whatever, as far as this "commission" is concerned, we'll have to see what they come up with. Meanwhile maybe we could be working on persuading the folks currently promoting increasing the number of justices that this could come back to smack them in the face, in order to dissuade them from the idea.

 

[230RN]

Could a moderator explain why discussion of the well documented, unquestionable anti-gun rights positions and intentions of the Democratic Party is controversial, let alone anathema ? This is not theory or opinion. The Democratic Party platform clearly contains measures aimed at substantially expanding federal gun laws and further restricting the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. It is not opinion; it is fact.

I understand and applaud the decision to keep other political issues off a forum that is clearly firearms focused. I don't understand the prohibition on discussing the fact that the Democratic Party advocates vastly diminished rights to keep and bear arms and that with exception of perhaps five members of Congress, uniformly endorses positions that a majority of gun owners would deem incompatible with the Second Amendment.

I would welcome and appreciate a mature and reasoned explanation.

The Democratic Party platform on gun control:

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

What DocRock points out is an ongoing difficulty I have with The High Road. It almost seems at times that the Moderation Cadre bends over backwards to demand documentation in chapter and verse for "rightish" policies but lets "progressive" opinions slide.

Note I said "almost seems," by which I mean I have not done a scientific analysis of bias or anything, but it sure looks like it to these wrinkled old eyeballs over the years.

And the notion that we should only discuss packing or AWBs or whatever after they have passed seems like the aforementioned self-knee-capping to me. An explanation of that would be welcome.

Note I said "seems like."

For what it's worth informally.

Note I said informally.

Terry, 230RN