Washington Post: Thomas Hardiman, possible SC nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’

The Washington Post ^ | 07/06/18 | Emma Brown

[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.”

[wastedyears]

I know about it. :/

[arthurus]

There ya go.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Second Amendment extremist” = Patriot.

I like it!!

[archy]

Leftist words mean nothing these days.

The Trotskyites want to define the terms, so they can throw them about to their advantage. Trotsky

[archy]

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.

After Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed and Amy Coney Barrett replaces Ruth Bader-Meinhoff, they can strike down or gut Rowe v. Wade, resulting in the deaths by stroke and apoplexy of the other liberal/Trotskyite justices and their fellow travelers. That will make for several vacancies, one of which Justice Hardiman can nicely fill.

Good plan!

[archy]

I think you are mistaken. Many of the framers had first hand experience in crowded cities, including London and Paris.

Private cannon were legal. They could create as much havoc in a crowd as an AR15. Grenades and bombs were well known.

Puckle Defence gun:

Puckle Gun

[archy]

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

The Framers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a jam-packed airport,stadium,or mall, filled with disarmed American serfs, unable to resist a hostile attack.

[DoughtyOne]

Nice find there...