Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington Post: Thomas Hardiman, possible SC nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
The Washington Post ^ | 07/06/18 | Emma Brown

Posted on 07/06/2018 12:43:22 PM PDT by Simon Green

n the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.

Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.

“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; hardiman; scotus; secondamendment; supremecourt; thomashardiman; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: thesharkboy

If the Second Amendment had only been more clear about keeping and bearing arms, then all this confusion could be avoided. Darn it.


Right? Why’d those old guys in tights just expound so clearly on abortion all the time and be so vague on the right to bear arms?


41 posted on 07/06/2018 1:59:52 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

What is a second amendment extremist? Either it means what it says or it doesn’t. “Shall not be infringed” is hard to misconstrue.


42 posted on 07/06/2018 2:02:04 PM PDT by bk1000 (I stand with Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears
Yeah, it would have been nice if they had laid it out, piece by piece-just like they did with the abortion right.
43 posted on 07/06/2018 2:03:58 PM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

What exactly is a Constitutional “extremist?” One who advocates adhering to the Constitution “extremely?” Are there any First Amendment extremists? Fifth Amendment? Is the Second the only amendment that admits of extremism?

Or is this just more liberal cowflop?


44 posted on 07/06/2018 2:04:38 PM PDT by IronJack (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

In other words he DISAGREED with Posner’s recommendation.

Which flips your conclusion on its head.


45 posted on 07/06/2018 2:06:41 PM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

“Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.”


I not only have no problem with that, I find that a RESTORATION of our 2nd Amendment rights to their status in the early 1800s would be highly desireable. No 1934 NFA - meaning that we can actually own militia arms, as the Founders intended; no 1968 GCA - so that our purchases can’t be tracked, and anyone who isn’t a criminal can legally buy and sell arms; and no 1986 FOPA, which effectively eliminated the ability to own a full auto firearm for ordinary citizens (unless you have a spare $20K or more laying around - and most of us don’t).

Hardiman just became my favored candidate - not just for what he could do for our rights, but because he’d make the Lefties go even more berzerk than they are at present. Then, when Ruth Buzzie dies, Trump can appoint a very originalist woman to complete the destruction of the minds of the America-hating Leftists.


46 posted on 07/06/2018 2:08:59 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why do you want them out where they can get one illegally? Or kill you with a knife? If they aren’t shouldn’t they have the right to self-defense? Makes no sense to me.


47 posted on 07/06/2018 2:15:32 PM PDT by Hugin (Conservatism without Nationalism is a fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears

“The Framers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a jam-packed airport,stadium,or mall.”


Or radio, television or the Internet - but that is no more an argument for allowing government control of the airwaves than crowded locations would argue for gun control.

The Founders knew about technological progress, and some of them were in the Continental Congress when Joseph Belton presented his Belton Gun, which allowed for rapid fire (it was purchased, as it was too expensive). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

Your argument for restricting modern firearms because the Founders never imagined them is easily disposed of garbage. You are, of course, entitled to your (statist) opinion in the matter, but if you go down that path then free speech itself is in danger.


48 posted on 07/06/2018 2:17:34 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: noiseman

“The leftist fantasy that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the military, because of the mention of a well-regulated militia, is absurd since after that brief preamble the amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms (which “shall not be infringed”) upon “the People.” While there have been recent hair-splitting legal exercises, such as in the Heller case, oriented toward determing who “the People” refers to throughout the Constitution, in no case does it refer to the government, or only the military. That would be absurd on its face. “


The notion is also absurd because of the clause within Article 1, Section 8 that gives the Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This is authorization for private citizens to engage in acts of war against foreign nations...and, at the time, necessarily relied upon PRIVATE owners of ships armed with dozens of (then) modern cannon. If you could own cannon then, you can own them now. If you could own the latest technology long gun then, you can own the latest technology long gun now.

There IS no sensible argument against the meaning of the 2nd Amendment - only an emotional argument against what it represents (liberty and power for the ordinary citizen, at the expense of government).


49 posted on 07/06/2018 2:22:13 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

“Your argument for restricting modern firearms because the Founders never imagined them is easily disposed of garbage. “

I HAD no argument for anything-—I was just commenting on what our forefathers probably had envisioned..

Lighten up!

.

.


50 posted on 07/06/2018 2:23:39 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr; Mears

“(it was purchased, as it was too expensive)”

should be

“(it wasn’t purchased, as it was too expensive)”


51 posted on 07/06/2018 2:24:50 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

Trump should appoint him!


52 posted on 07/06/2018 2:31:42 PM PDT by guitar Josh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears; thesharkboy

“I HAD no argument for anything-—I was just commenting on what our forefathers probably had envisioned.”

Lighten up!”


I was responding to your statement, which was:

“The Framers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a jam-packed airport,stadium,or mall.”

That, in turn, was YOUR response to thesharkboy’s statement in #21 that:

“If the Second Amendment had only been more clear about keeping and bearing arms, then all this confusion could be avoided. Darn it.”
___________________________
How else should one view your statement, but as an argument for gun restrictions? You responded to a statement that said that there should be NO restrictions (or “infringement”) upon our 2nd Amendment rights, with a statement that ONLY anti-gun people make, with is “the Founders could never have imagined X.” That is, by necessity, an argument for interpreting the Constitution as a “living” document (which the anti-gun Leftists like to do), rather than based upon the original meaning of its text (as generally pro-gun Originalists like to do).

I hope that you understand why I reacted as I did - because your statement was, in context, entirely consistent with the typical anti-gun argument that the Left has been presenting for decades, no matter what your initial intention may have been.


53 posted on 07/06/2018 2:35:09 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

So this must mean that places like Vermont and Maine must be full of Second Amendment extremists and that there are no such extremists in places like Chicago, Washington DC, and California, according to the people at the Post and their logic.


54 posted on 07/06/2018 2:37:34 PM PDT by OttawaFreeper ("The Gardens was founded by men-sportsmen-who fought for their country" Conn Smythe, 1966)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

“I hope that you understand why I reacted as I did -—”

I do.

.


55 posted on 07/06/2018 2:39:50 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

I wonder what a First or Third or Fourth or Fifth Amendment extremist would be, in the eyes of the Washington Post?


56 posted on 07/06/2018 2:51:03 PM PDT by OttawaFreeper ("The Gardens was founded by men-sportsmen-who fought for their country" Conn Smythe, 1966)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears

“I do.”


Thanks, I appreciate that - as I appreciate that someone’s intentions could be different than the words they use. I’ve done that a time or two in my life. :>)

Best wishes to you and your family, FReegards.


57 posted on 07/06/2018 2:55:19 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

He sounds great on the 2nd Amendment!


58 posted on 07/06/2018 3:13:42 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
I suspect we will have the first mass shooting with an "assault rifle" within 72 hours of the nominee being named.

Make book on it.

59 posted on 07/06/2018 3:17:39 PM PDT by Gritty (This is what the other side is all about. Hate and bullshit is their political platform.-DJ Trump Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gritty

wouldn’t surprise me.


60 posted on 07/06/2018 3:39:06 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson