Court Packing Threat over 2A issues

[Ru4real]

Congress isn’t filled with fools.

Our experiences differ significantly

Words escape me.

A challenge to both of you: How many and which named congressman that weren’t millionaires when they entered congress didn’t become millionaires while they were in congress? (In the last 30 years)

Who are the fools that believe congress is still about making laws to take care of us serfs, and not about their own wealth and power?

 

[danez71]

Who are the fools that believe congress is still about making laws to take care of us serfs, and not about their own wealth and power?

I quoted you but this isn't meant at only because of this quote.

While I get the sentiment, please, let's not go into general political foolishness.



The mods DO have some point about that.

We need to talk RKBA political issues with out going into general non productive tangently related whining.

 

[X62503]

Who are the fools that believe congress is still about making laws to take care of us serfs, and not about their own wealth and power?

I understood your original comment to be a compliment to members of Congress, as did many, I am sure. Now I am less sure it was a compliment.

 

[wbm]

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?

One of the things that might be helpful with "avoiding politics" on issues like RKBA or "packing the court" is to post names, without party affiliation, of those people who have given opinions on the issue. So it it is just names of people. Would that be political or talking politics?

Example: Ben Lujan, Martin Heinrich, Debra Haaland, Yvette Herrel, and Teresa Leger Fernandez all support anti-firearm legislation and changing the number of people on the Supreme Court if that would help their objectives.

Or how about if I just say "hey guys there are some people somewhere who want to pass anti-firearm legislation and change the number of justices on the Supreme Court." Is that political or talking politics?

Sometimes I think our own silliness gets us off track.

 

[danez71]

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

I asked that too. It could help to avoid the appreance of Jack Dorsey practices.


But I go back to this, if people can't control themselves from degenerating good RKBA threads, the mods shouldnt punish and diminish the mission of THR; warn and temp ban as the rules state.

 

[Robert]

Let's get back to the OP.

 

[rust collector]

The OP was a response to an observation made on a closed thread, with a link to a news article, and a statement that the OP's opinion was of a higher value because he was more informed. Soon the subject turned to indignation that such a bully pulpit was not more amenable to heated rhetoric and conspiracy theory.
SMH

 

[wbm]

It was stated on another thread that the Democrats threats of court packing were in reference to political election issues.

Yep it was.

I watched a person named Harris talk in favor of it but it was in reference to the nomination of another peron to the court and the fear that future decisions made by that person would not be favorable to Harris's objectives....therefore adding more judges favorable to Harris's objectives seemed appropriate to Harris.

 

[Hokkmike]

The further we deviate from the design inherent in the constitutional as written, amendments excepted, for political advantage the more we degrade the efficacy of our rule of law.

As for court packing, the number one issue certainly is abortion.

 

[FFGColorado]

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.

Senate judicial committees have been very tough on Supreme Court nominees, nominated by the opposing party and POTUS since the process was created in 1789.
'Harrassment' by some, close examination by others..depends on the political bend'.

Congress isn’t filled with fools.

Could have fooled me, particularly in the last 12 months, 3 months or so...

 

[BigBore44]

Yep it was.

I watched a he/she/it named Harris talk in favor of it but it was in reference to the nomination of another he/she/it to the court and the fear that future decisions made by that he/she/it would not be favorable to he/she/it Harris's objectives....therefore adding more judges favorable to he/she/it Harris's objectives seemed appropriate to he/she/it Harris.

My brain isn’t awake enough for that post yet. I’m gonna try again after coffee.

 

[wbm]

LOL. Altered it to "person"...person hood is easier to grasp early..he/she/it is difficult even after coffee.

Listening to different persons in favor of "court packing" I came away with the impression that there was a variety of reasons each had for the opinion. However, basically it came down to fear of "conservative" justices outnumbering "less conservative" justices.

 

[FFGColorado]

What's really interesting to me is the description of various supreme court justices, how conservative they may or may not be and how they voted on a BIG 2A case, DC vs Heller in 2008...including Thomas, who is described as the MOST conservative justice. I'm not that well versed in the Heller case but it 'seems' to still be a real bone of contention.

 

[bdickens]

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/

Being both a gun owner and a Democrat strikes me a bit like being a Vegan and working in a butcher shop.

 

[GEM]

That's it. Closed.