Search found 1 match

by mayor
Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:30 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Dems threaten SCOTUS over upcoming 2A case
Replies: 25
Views: 9030

Re: Dems threaten SCOTUS over upcoming 2A case

Rob72 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:51 pm
Grayling813 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:10 pm
jerry_r60 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:56 am As was stated earlier, manipulating the number of Justices is how they can remake the court. Here is some quick history (from https://www.history.com/news/7-things-y ... reme-court)

2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.
Okay, they have a plan and it's Constitutionally allowed. Best of luck to them....having an overwhelming socialist SCOTUS doesn't mean 600 million firearms are going to be willingly turned in or confiscated.
That assumes that the some of the owners are willing to take a stand. I've said for a long time that, "welfare checks," anytime EMS goes to a home is the likely way it will start. If the property owner doesn't give them up voluntarily, and weapons are found subsequent to a search, the owner becomes ineligible for XXX government services (Medicare/Medicade, EMS service, etc.,etc..).

The only way that doesn't work is if LEO, as a whole refuses to pursue, and EMS/Fire, as a whole, refuse to ask/pursue. If jobs and benefits are on the line, are there enough with the character to step beyond political association (Dem/Rep) and support the Constitution? I am doubtful, at best.
Desperate people do desperate things. If something goes down, XXX government service won't be worth the oral diarrhea it took to promise it.

Return to “Dems threaten SCOTUS over upcoming 2A case”