Is it good that Clarence Thomas is authoring the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc?

[kwguy]

But it is good to analyze the possibilities in advance of the case being heard. To dismiss it as mere "speculation" is unfair.

It seems to little old me that most of the obfuscation and confusion-generation is based on the old "common law" principles... mainly founded on English Law.

But I have long regarded the Constitution as a new formulation of Common Law and should be read on its own without reference to antiquated principles, even while admitting to various flaws exposed by time.

I too was around when GCA 68 was being thrashed out, and the above concept occurred to me back then. It was a big surprise to many in the gun community that GCA 68 could and did get passed.

But what the heck, at the age of 29, I had a living to make and had the usual personal battles to fight and figured GCA 68 would ultimately be shot down in the Courts either as a whole or part-by-part.

But... the obfuscators and word-warpers won out.

And I still wonder what became of the motivations of "a number of the States" in wanting to solidify certain rights, according to the Preamble of the Bill Of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

You can't warp those words....

Terry, 230RN

It’s almost like they understood human nature, and wanted even MORE language in there to further clarify and prevent the twisting of the intent.

Weird!

 

[230RN]

I guess they didn't want to leave certain rights left to the vagaries of "unenumerated" rights. Good foresight to spell them out in yet more words, n'est-ce pas?

As I've noted persistently and annoyingly, the brevity of the Second Amendment indicates they really, really meant it, no kiddin' around.

 

[coloradokevin]

It is said that Clarence Thomas will be authoring the opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.


While Thomas appears to be solidly pro-2nd Amendment would it be better to have Brett Kavanagh or Amy Coney-Barrett author the opinion?


If you think so, why?

Based on the statements Thomas (a quiet justice overall) has made about the 2nd Amendment in the past five years, this is excellent news! He may, in fact, be the best person to write for the majority on 2nd Amendment rights.

Allow me to share an excerpt from a news article from a couple of years ago:

QUOTE:

"Thomas, in an opinion released on Tuesday, criticized the courts for a “general failure to afford the 2nd Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.” He was writing a dissent after his colleagues declined to take up a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period as it applies to individuals who already own guns.

“The lower courts are resisting this court’s decision” in Heller, Thomas complained, “and are failing to protect the 2nd Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights.”

The 69-year-old justice also turned to his own colleagues on the bench bemoaning the fact that there haven’t been the necessary four votes to take up a major 2nd Amendment related case since Heller.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene,” Thomas said. “The 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”"

No other justice joined Thomas’s dissent in the California case, but conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito have chimed in with similar sentiments concerning other cases.

 

[coloradokevin]

Sorry to rain on this, but it can't be true. They haven't even heard arguments yet.

Ugh. I was hoping that I had just missed that they were somehow further along in this process. Unfortunately it sounds like they just simply haven't heard this case yet! Still, when the time comes I sure would appreciate a situation where Thomas gets to write the opinion of the court!

 

[Howland937]

Ugh. I was hoping that I had just missed that they were somehow further along in this process. Unfortunately it sounds like they just simply haven't heard this case yet! Still, when the time comes I sure would appreciate a situation where Thomas gets to write the opinion of the court!

Nope, you haven't missed anything. Just hope our horse doesn't get too tired chasing the cart.

 

[Poper]

As I've noted persistently and annoyingly, the brevity of the Second Amendment indicates they really, really meant it, no kiddin' around.

Kinda like "I double dare you to cross this line." Yet our politicians did, and continue to do so to this very day.
I have often wondered why GCA was allowed to pass by the people and have discussed it thoroughly with my siblings and late father. The conclusion we pretty much agreed on was that the majority of the population of the time was war weary and the WWII generation was making the laws / rules. The last thing they wanted to see was their children and grandchildren embroiled in another such conflict, this time most likely with nuclear weapons - I.E. WWIII. The attitude of many the WWII vets that saw combat (my grandfather was at the Operation Torch landings and fought the Germans across the Mediterranean and through Italy until Germany surrendered) - and his attitude was such that he did not appreciate the war in SE Asia at the time and wanted dearly to keep my uncle from going to war. (unsuccessfully)
Funny thing, though, I think my grandfather would be appalled at what our government has become since he passed in 1996. I know he was not happy with the Clinton Administration and he was a staunch FDR Democrat until the day he died. I think the social upheaval of the time and the relatively quick succession of political assassinations in America (JFK, MLK and RFK) convinced people in general that a little less freedom might be a good thing.