Trump Selects a Justice in the Mold of Antonin Scalia [More]How do they know?
And what limits does he support?
This ain't exactly a ringing testimonial:
In U.S. v. Games-Perez, Gorsuch stated, in dicta, that an individual should not be able to be convicted of a “gun possession” offense unless the person knew his actions were unlawful.What, like me? Like the "I will not comply" movement?
He also said "the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly...”
"Lightly"?
I guess GOA does not agree that we should look before we buy and are stuck with a judge forever? Instead they present a compelling reason to leap before we look?
"We understand that the defeat of President Trump's nominee could mean that Scalia's seat would held open by the minority until it could be filled by someone who is rabidly anti-gun -- and who would tip the balance of the court in favor of the repeal of the Second Amendment as an individual right."I call hyperbole on that. Only if Republicans let them.
As long as I'm grousing:
When are we going to see specifically called-out action on this pledge and what we'd agreed was an existential threat to RKBA (46 minute mark)? Because I see nothing on GOA's site indicating it's a factor. Matter of fact, I see them stumping for a guy who got a 68% score on immigration.
And I'm sure Ms. Pepper is a very nice person. Why do all the measurable achievements -- as presented in the plug -- appear to be for "sporting purposes"?
Mr. Macy: Care to give us something more substantial and show us how she would answer the same questions Mr. Stamboulieh did?
I can't count the number of times I've gone to bat for GOA over the years because of a truly different way of doing things in Springfield vs. Fairfax. Sadly, I'm no longer seeing it.
Perhaps it's me. Perhaps I'm the one who's too extreme.
What am I asking for that "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington" would want to shy away from?
3 comments:
Gorsuch is as good as we are going to get. Believe me we could do a lot worse. Also remember these guys might not do as expected once they get on the court. Remember Earl Warren?
Of course I remember Earl Warren, appointed in a recess and confirmed months later by voice vote, with everyone accepting meaningless and equivocal weasel words on what a great "conservative" he'd be. Why do you think I want Judiciary to nail this guy down on specifics? Assuming you followed the link and read my Gorsuch piece, why wouldn't you want to see the questions asked and answered?
It's sad that I had to read this. I've been wondering, too.
Unyielding. It that extreme? I assert it is principled.
Thank you David for your resolve in remaining principled.
Post a Comment