• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why Brett Kavanaugh Is The Justice Gun Owners Have Been Waiting For

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Interesting perspective you seem to hold.

That was a quote direct from the article.

Anytime a judge is predisposed to side with the government before a case is heard, meaning that that judge needs to be convinced to rule to restrain the government, we should all be concerned.
[/quote]

Kavanaugh leans towards siding with the Constitution. I've already reviewed a number of his cases. I don't need exhaustive proof.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
That was a quote direct from the article.

Kavanaugh leans towards siding with the Constitution. I've already reviewed a number of his cases. I don't need exhaustive proof.
In my view Kavanaugh most certainly does not lean towards siding with the constitution where the 4A is concerned. I do not know where he leans on the 2A.

The evidence I use I have submit here for all to read.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
In my view Kavanaugh most certainly does not lean towards siding with the constitution where the 4A is concerned. I do not know where he leans on the 2A.

The evidence I use I have submit here for all to read.

When a person says, "Kavanaugh leans towards siding with the Constitution" without specifying the particular focus, it means, "in general," which is clearly implied. Why? How? Because that's how humans have been speaking English for hundreds of years.

2A and 4A cases aren't the only cases heard by U.S. Supreme Court justices, nor are they the only cases that matter to our nation as a whole.

You might say, "Well, that's all that matters to me" to which I'd respond, "Why are you thinking only of yourself? He's not your personal judge. He will hear cases about a great many things. In general, he sides with the Constitution, which is one of the reasons why Trump nominated him.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
When a person says, "Kavanaugh leans towards siding with the Constitution" without specifying the particular focus, it means, "in general," which is clearly implied. Why? How? Because that's how humans have been speaking English for hundreds of years.

2A and 4A cases aren't the only cases heard by U.S. Supreme Court justices, nor are they the only cases that matter to our nation as a whole.

You might say, "Well, that's all that matters to me" to which I'd respond, "Why are you thinking only of yourself? He's not your personal judge. He will hear cases about a great many things. In general, he sides with the Constitution, which is one of the reasons why Trump nominated him.

Statistically it seems Since9, you haven’t grasped the concept that ‘conversational’ [include geographic locale nuances] English can be significantly different than grammatical, or formal, or business, or legal, or even dialect affected English.

For example, a peer says to you, ‘how are you?’ Grammatically your response should be, ‘I am well!’ [fine is acceptable]’ Got a fiver says, you don’t respond or just give the individual a glaring look?

context matters, saying individual’s understanding of the word’s meaning matter, grammar matters, HOW the spoken word is said matters, receiver’s understanding of the word matters, and so forth.

Go to merriam-websters and look at the word ‘race’ and in todays usage ethnicity is the third usage! [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race ]

I’ll help with the definition of “LOVE” ~ it is nature’s way of getting people to procreate!:uhoh:

look it up, better yet, ask your partner to write down what it means to them and then both look it up together in merriam-websters....[ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love ]
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Town v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918) - Mr. Justice Holmes
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Town v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918) - Mr. Justice Holmes
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.

I so ‘love’ your way with words...:eek:
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
When a person says, "Kavanaugh leans towards siding with the Constitution" without specifying the particular focus, it means, "in general," which is clearly implied. Why? How? Because that's how humans have been speaking English for hundreds of years.

2A and 4A cases aren't the only cases heard by U.S. Supreme Court justices, nor are they the only cases that matter to our nation as a whole.

You might say, "Well, that's all that matters to me" to which I'd respond, "Why are you thinking only of yourself? He's not your personal judge. He will hear cases about a great many things. In general, he sides with the Constitution, which is one of the reasons why Trump nominated him.
There are only two case types that matter in the USA, 2A and the 4A questions.

His [Kavanaugh's] views on the 2A are of equal concern.
He [Kavanaugh] contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition” will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right. http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/

In Judge Kavanaugh’s view, the United States Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny. https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/judge-kavanaugh-concealed-carry-not-a-right_139538/
Not promising.

Anyway, will Kavanaugh vote to overturn Kelo? Terry? Based on the public record, I do not believe he will. Kavanaugh sides with the government first and must then be convinced that the government needs to be restrained.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There are only two case types that matter in the USA, 2A and the 4A questions.

That is an unbelievable myopic point of view, there, OC for ME. Put simply, you're intimating nothing else that matters to everyone else is of any importance at all.

While both 2A and 4A cases certainly do matter, they're by no means the end all, be all of Constitutional law in our country. Our Constitution is far longer than 481 words.

I liken 2A as a bellwether, not as the keel. Indeed, if the Constitution is the keel of our system of law, then the Bill of Rights -- all 10 of them -- are the rudder.

But to say one of them, or even two of them, are all that matters, well, Sir, that's just darn ridiculous. Of course the rest of the Amendments matter. Of course our Constitution matters. Of course the federal laws lawfully derived from our Constitution matter.

Anyway, will Kavanaugh vote to overturn Kelo? Terry? Based on the public record, I do not believe he will. Kavanaugh sides with the government first and must then be convinced that the government needs to be restrained.

Kavanaugh isn't the only justice on the court. Indeed, if you were to find a perfectly Constitutional candidate, I seriously doubt they would be approved by the Senate.

So, since the perfect candidate (a strict Constitutionalist) is never an option, what is?

Game theory 101: The next best thing, someone who is "reasonably Constitutional." In fact, if you get enough reasonably Constitutional people together in a room, like "iron sharpens iron," they tend to reinforce the strength of their beliefs as those beliefs are based on an actual Constitution they can all reference, unlike the beliefs of the left, which are based on a fairly loose, idealistic set of beliefs from multiple, poorly authoritative and not well-anchored sources.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
DJT and many of us want judges that have the back-bone to wind back the STUPID decisions made by the high court. For one, the commerce clause being used well beyond the founding fathers intent. The court preaches that they are to rely on the plane meaning of the law (constitution) the simple words used in the law. Then the very same court does the exact opposite.

Where did the founding fathers ever say the law was up for interpretation? "Shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law" sure does not sound vague.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
This thread has now gone on for 30 posts and we have read of distaste, dissatisfaction, dismay and disappointment over the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court. What we have not heard is any suggestion by any of these dissatisfied OCDO patrons of a person that they think would be a better choice. If not Kavanaugh, who do you want? What choice would have made you happy? Maybe, we can get your pick for Trump's third appointment. Who has the lifetime background of study and research of the law to satisfy you? Who has the temperment to make rulings with his mind and not with his prejudices? Would that person be willing to subject himself and his family to the horrible treatment that Justice Kavanaugh had to endure (ala Justice Thomas)? Will the Senate be willing to "Advise and Consent" to his lifetime appointment? Will he be willing to subject himself and his family to the lifetime of scrutiny, physical danger, social ostracism and 24/7/365 protection. Would you want an OCDO member nominated? If yes, which one? Should we decide by a simple majority vote, 2/3 majority or do we need a unanimous choice? Justices Souter, OConnor, Stevens and Kennedy were not found to be suitable and we have dismissed them from further consideration.

What about since9 or OC for ME? Do they have the temperament needed for SCOTUS? Can color of law withstand the heat of the democrats and garner the 51 votes needed in the Senate. Grapeshot would have been our obvious choice, but he has passed on and now sits no the Court of Final Judgement. We missed out on our best chance with davidMacbeth. With Grapeshot gone, David may soon be back and once again available; who knows what kind of caveats are on his order of expulsion. So who should be our horse in the next race? I would volunteer my services but doubt that my past behavior would be acceptable. There could be mutiple women that might accuse me of poor conduct and/or improper advances, improper touching, improper language, improper requests, improper sniffing, improper staring, improper nudging, improper suggestions, improper living, improper disrobing, improper discharge of a non-firearm, and other improper improprities. I could easily be the next #metoo accused.

Like most of the other discussions on OCDO, this one has no conclusion, it goes on and on without any resolution, without any right or wrong answers and without any objective or accurate information, just opinion, some of it wise and some not so wise. We need term limits on this type of discussion. If you can't get it said and resolved in 30 posts, it should be dead.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
What about since9 or OC for ME?

Yeah, I dunno, gutshot II. I don't read shouting, regardless of whether it's by ALLCAPS or by making your entire post large and angry.

...has no conclusion, it goes on and on without any resolution...

You're failing to understand the nature of a message forum. It's not a board meeting. It's a "forum," literally and by definition, "a public meeting place for open discussion." The example given in the dictionary is: "The club provides a forum for people interested in local history."

Neither "conclusion" nor "resolution" are parts of the message forum process.

Rather, message forums involve an "iron sharpens iron" type process, one that is by design ongoing, whereby people slowly become both more knowledgeable on topics as well as better able to make their points known, not to mention engage in logical discourse elsewhere, say, in public forums before a city council or in letters to state legislators and members of Congress.

Message forums are all about open-ended continuation and improvement. While threads shouldn't wander off-topic too much, they should be free to wander a decent bits.

It's how we humans learn. :)
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Withstand the heat of the democrats? More than likely yes. Garner the 51 votes needed in the Senate? More than likely no.

Oh I might instigate grassroots push for senate folk to vote for the buckeye curmudgeon candidate...

:uhoh: Opps pushed the count to 33..drat!
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
That is an unbelievable myopic point of view, there, OC for ME. Put simply, you're intimating nothing else that matters to everyone else is of any importance at all. ...
Intimating? Is there any other way that you would have me state that the 2A and 4A are the only amendments that matter? The two most powerfully worded amendments in my view, "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated."

Incidentally, there is the 1A, "Congress shall make no law"...which is ignored by every state too.

... Of course the federal laws lawfully derived from our Constitution matter.
I agree that we must obey them and defeat them in a court of law, or via the ballot box. This is the only reason they matter.

A citizen's question should be, if not for the 2A, and to some extent the 4A, where would we all be today. England? Canada? Australia? Not, well, ya know, there are those other amendments too, not just the 2A and 4A. There is no (or should not be a) greater restraint on government than the 4A, what little of it remains post Terry v. Ohio. No other amendment is so ignored by legislators than the 2A.

Everybody knows exactly what The Founders meant...except for the USSC. The 2A was not "put in there" just so we could "defend hearth and home."

The 9A and 10A...how are we as a nation doing with those two...NFA, GCA, ACA...need I go on?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Intimating? Is there any other way that you would have me state that the 2A and 4A are the only amendments that matter?

State it anyway you want, but your opinion that they're "the only amendments that matter" both ignores and disdains the vital importance of the other Amendments. For example, how do you propose protecting 2A and 4A without 1A's freedom of speech and the right to redress government with your grievances? Do you propose shooting any politician who disagrees with you or violates your rights? Or will you instead exercise your 1A rights by using your words?

The two most powerfully worded amendments in my view, "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated."

Now you see, stating they're "the two most powerfully worded amendments" is quite different than your stating they're "the only amendments that matter." The former does not attempt to negate the others.

Incidentally, there is the 1A, "Congress shall make no law"...which is ignored by every state too.

That's because the restriction was against Congress, not the states. To understand why, you have to consider the period, where states fully supported religion. In fact, the states were concerned our newly-formed federal government would either override state laws giving religion a wide berth, or worse, attempt to establish a national religion such as existed in England. Indeed, more than one early member of our government proposed just that.

I agree that we must obey them and defeat them in a court of law, or via the ballot box. This is the only reason they matter.

You've mentioned 2A, 4A, and 1A. By "they" do you mean all amendments or just 2A and 4A?

A citizen's question should be, if not for the 2A, and to some extent the 4A, where would we all be today. England? Canada? Australia? Not, well, ya know, there are those other amendments too, not just the 2A and 4A. There is no (or should not be a) greater restraint on government than the 4A, what little of it remains post Terry v. Ohio. No other amendment is so ignored by legislators than the 2A.

Agreed. No, seriously, I agree both 2A and 4A are pivotal and we need to regain ground lost to ignorance and control freaks.

Even so, Amendments such as 9A and 10A play huge roles in keep the feds in check, as well:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Interestingly enough, "The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, and not against the states." The problem I have with this is that where the subject is specifically stated, such as with 1A's "Congress," when it applies to Congress, whereas absent such limitation it applies to all, a fact which the states knowingly accepted at ratification.

Put simply, the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong.

Everybody knows exactly what The Founders meant...except for the USSC. The 2A was not "put in there" just so we could "defend hearth and home."

Is that what SCOTUS said about McDonald and Heller? Or did they find "that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states" and "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm?"

The 9A and 10A...how are we as a nation doing with those two...NFA, GCA, ACA...need I go on?

Just because we're doing poorly doesn't mean they're not important. If anything, their importance is unrelated to governmental performance. They're supremely important, all of them, and should be defended as such.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
State it anyway you want, but your opinion that they're "the only amendments that matter" both ignores and disdains the vital importance of the other Amendments. For example, how do you propose protecting 2A and 4A without 1A's freedom of speech and the right to redress government with your grievances? Do you propose shooting any politician who disagrees with you or violates your rights? Or will you instead exercise your 1A rights by using your words?
Let me get this straight, the 1A protects or 2A and 4A? I was never on the OC is exercising my 1A band wagon. I thought you were more reasonable than this. The 1A most certainly has nothing to do with 4A violations (Terry v. Ohio) by wayward cops.

Even so, Amendments such as 9A and 10A play huge roles in keep the feds in check, as well: ...
I clearly see the feds (and USSC) not respecting the 9A and 10A...virtually ignored by the feds at every turn. Kelo, Terry, GCA and NFA are the big rulings that confirm this in my view.

... Put simply, the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong.
No they did not...if you are state sovereignty kind of guy like me, and have any respect for the 9A and 10A. But this was way back in 1833 and USSC has long ago voted to overturn that ruling...stare decisis my rear end.

Is that what SCOTUS said about McDonald and Heller? Or did they find "that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states" and "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm?"
The hearth and home comment is from Heller. Anyway, if Heller and McDonald mean anything at all to the USSC, which it does not, then it should be a slam dunk...no? The Sullivan Act would have been voided years ago. OC/CC in Illinois would be close to normalized by now outside of Cook County.

Just because we're doing poorly doesn't mean they're not important. If anything, their importance is unrelated to governmental performance. They're supremely important, all of them, and should be defended as such.
It is not about importance, it is about what will Kavanaugh do to restore individual liberty when it is his turn to vote. I suspect that Kavanaugh will not vote to restrain government based on the views of others closer to the USSC and his track record. I hope to be proven wrong and Kavanaugh overturns Terry v. Ohio, Kelo v. New London and votes the ACA as unconstitutional. I hope that Kavanaugh votes to void the NFA and GCA as unconstitutional.

I suspect that none of these things will come to pass cuz Kavanaugh is not a restrain government at every opportunity kind of guy.
 
Top