Posted on 07/16/2004 8:59:00 AM PDT by neverdem
Oh my. Please don't misinterpret an explanation of a ruling as my support of that ruling. Why would you do that?
"As far as that interpretation not mattering when it comes to the law, I disagree."
Well, what I meant was that his interpretation doesn't matter -- if the USSC, or any court, had that interpretation, it would matter.
Here was your first question to me about my point:
Is this Clarence Thomas Appreciation Week, or does your post have a point?
Post Reply | Private Reply | *To 249*
Since you did not specify otherwise, I took it as refering to #249, since #249 was the post you were replying to. How illogical of me.
Seems a bit disingenuous on your part to quote Justice Thomas admonishing Congress but leaving out his criticism of the same actions by his own USSC.
You're the one who said you were sure Justice Thomas had no problem funding judicial activism.
You failed to point out Justice Thomas' criticism of judicial activism in a prior case which you yourself cited. Now, who was being disingenuous?
Given that he's criticized both, I'm simply asking the point of your post #190.
My point in #190 should have been obvious, but I'll repeat it:
"The gun grabbers will use hook or crook to get around the Second Amendment." That was the point.
To quote from Justice Thomas in Printz:
In my "revisionist" view, see post, at 3, the Federal Government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which merely allocates to Congress the power "to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states," does not extend to the regulation of wholly intrastate, point of sale transactions. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 584 (1995) (concurring opinion).
Lopez, if you'll recall, was the case in which Justice Thomas wrote so eloquently about the error of the substantial effects doctrine.
I'll be glad to post some of his well thought out opinion from the case. You have but to ask.
Why? Because your comments seem supportive of - or at least sympathetic towards - the "collective right" interpretation, that's why. If I misread that, I apologize.
I suppose we could close our eyes to the fact that the vast majority of the federal courts have ruled that way ....
I say we leave the USSC out of this and strengthen state constitutions.
I say we leave the USSC out of this and strengthen state constitutions.
What made you change your mind?
And third, I sure do wish that Justice Thomas would spend less time convincing the public of his position and more time convincing his fellow Justices TO ACCEPT A RKBA CASE.
310 posted on 07/18/2004 5:40:54 PM CDT by robertpaulsen
Two different areas, buttinski. 1) Should Clarence Thomas a) publicly discuss ad nauseum his conservative position on everything from abortion to gun rights? or b) be spending that time pushing his fellow members to take on a RKBA case? Corrct answer: B
2) Should the citizens of a state like California be pushing for a) the USSC to hear a god-awful case like Silveira v Lockyer? or b) their state legislature to amend the state constitution to protect their RKBA? Correct answer: B
New year brings new laws
Another new law permits criminal charges against gun owners who fail to store weapons safely _ perhaps by using trigger locks _ in cases where a child ends up injuring someone with the gun. The gun owner could be fined and jailed for 30 days.
Such laws won't stop gun violence, but they can have a real impact, said Barbara Shaw, director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority.
``The more society puts its collective foot down, so to speak, the more deterrence we´ll have,´´ she said.
Gov. Blagojevich Launches Children's Mental Health Partnership
Barbara Shaw, Director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority has been appointed Partnership Chairwoman. Referring to the challenging task before her committee, she commented, "I look forward to working with the Partnership and the Blagojevich Administration to build our children's social and emotional strength so they can become happy, achieving students and productive, caring citizens. We expect that Illinois will be a national leader in this effort."
I wonder. Is it any less severe if the child injures someone else with the cocaine they found? The knives they found? The cleaning products, gasoline, lighters, etc. that they found?
I wonder if there are laws that permit criminal charges against the child's guardians for that?
"Gov. Blagojevich Launches Children's Mental Health Partnership"
I take it that you think this is a method to ban future gun ownership? I'd say that you're seeing black helicopters, but you may have a point. The more kids the state diagnoses with ADD, short-term depression, "behavioral problems", etc., the less gun permits that have to issue later.
Good ol' Ken H -- always thinkin'.
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.