2005 USA Law protects gun manufactures or does it

We will find out if the law protects Bushmaster or not when this case goes though the courts. But we need to get the Supreme Court Justice nominated and confirmed sooner rather than later.

[url]http://www.14news.com/story/31277295/gun-maker-seeks-dismissal-of-lawsuit-over-newtown-shooting[/url]

Note Hillary is totally against the law that protects the gun manufactures from these frivolous law suits.

But Bernie Sanders voted for this law when it passed the US Senate. Now he is being pressured by the liberals to try to get rid of this law. I hope he stays pro gun and does not turn into a anti gun freak.

[QUOTE=Moveon;553294]We will find out if the law protects Bushmaster or not when this case goes though the courts. But we need to get the Supreme Court Justice nominated and confirmed sooner rather than later.

[url]http://www.14news.com/story/31277295/gun-maker-seeks-dismissal-of-lawsuit-over-newtown-shooting[/url]

Note Hillary is totally against the law that protects the gun manufactures from these frivolous law suits.

But Bernie Sanders voted for this law when it passed the US Senate. Now he is being pressured by the liberals to try to get rid of this law. I hope he stays pro gun and does not turn into a anti gun freak.[/QUOTE]

If we don't get a supreme court justice confirmed the appellate courts will determine.....

There is zero need to run into a confirmation.....NOW, if we have an effective and serious candidate, I believe he or she should get an up or down vote, but if you honestly think Obama is going to nominate anyone to the court that will NOT vote down the second amendment, you're not seeing reality.

Getting the right justice seated on the US Supreme Court is key to keeping the 2nd amendment as it was intended.

[url]http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/gun-rights/could-justice-scalias-death-mean-the-end-of-gun-rights-in-america/?utm_source=newsletter_022216&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter[/url]

I find this interesting article above.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;553295]If we don't get a supreme court justice confirmed the appellate courts will determine.....

There is zero need to run into a confirmation.....NOW, if we have an effective and serious candidate, I believe he or she should get an up or down vote, but if you honestly think Obama is going to nominate anyone to the court that will NOT vote down the second amendment, you're not seeing reality.[/QUOTE]

Interesting word you chose to use. RUN. Or need to RUN.

If we started running now we could run around the world three times before the next President is seated if we wait for that to happen. Going a full year or more without a full compliment of justices on the US Supreme Court Justices in NOT a good thing. It's reckless and shameful. We all know that Mitch McConnell hates Obama and is doing anything and everything in his power to stop anything that Obama tries to do. There is zero compromise in Mitch and the GOP Senate and this is going to hurt their chances of hanging onto the Senate Majority with this coming elections. There are far more GOP Senators up for re-election as there are Democratic Senators. The GOP has much more to lose.

[QUOTE=Moveon;553298]Interesting word you chose to use. RUN. Or need to RUN.

If we started running now we could run around the world three times before the next President is seated if we wait for that to happen. Going a full year or more without a full compliment of justices on the US Supreme Court Justices in NOT a good thing. It's reckless and shameful. We all know that Mitch McConnell hates Obama and is doing anything and everything in his power to stop anything that Obama tries to do. There is zero compromise in Mitch and the GOP Senate and this is going to hurt their chances of hanging onto the Senate Majority with this coming elections. There are far more GOP Senators up for re-election as there are Democratic Senators. The GOP has much more to lose.[/QUOTE]

The longest vacancy on the supreme court is just over 27 months.

The longest in modern times.......391 days.

I will say it again, unlike what DEMOCRATS want you to believe, the world will not end if a justice is not seated....Have hearings, have up and down votes, but SEAT the best candidate.

More than anytime in recent history, this nominee is an extremely, EXTREMELY important nominee, and can shape the things to come for many, many, many decades.

Choose wisely.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;553304]The longest vacancy on the supreme court is just over 27 months.

The longest in modern times.......391 days.

I will say it again, unlike what DEMOCRATS want you to believe, the world will not end if a justice is not seated....Have hearings, have up and down votes, but SEAT the best candidate.

More than anytime in recent history, this nominee is an extremely, EXTREMELY important nominee, and can shape the things to come for many, many, many decades.

Choose wisely.[/QUOTE]

Obama has spoken and will nominate a guy who's anti gun and even though the gun issue is a single issue it's importance effects almost every thing else down the road. When the people are armed the government can't easily override the people's wishes. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment as well as the 1st and 3rd amendments.

I don't know a whole lot about Obama's pick for the supreme court but I did read that he is anti gun and would vote to reverse the current law. Current Supreme Court rulings give people the right to bear arms in their homes. I read that this guy is against that ruling.

I didn't like Scalia on a lot of other things but I liked him for the way he protected the 2nd amendment.

[QUOTE=Moveon;553903]Obama has spoken and will nominate a guy who's anti gun and even though the gun issue is a single issue it's importance effects almost every thing else down the road. When the people are armed the government can't easily override the people's wishes. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment as well as the 1st and 3rd amendments.

I don't know a whole lot about Obama's pick for the supreme court but I did read that he is anti gun and would vote to reverse the current law. Current Supreme Court rulings give people the right to bear arms in their homes. I read that this guy is against that ruling.

I didn't like Scalia on a lot of other things but I liked him for the way he protected the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE]

Here ya go:



1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.

2. Garland has favored environmental regulations. As SCOTUSblog noted in 2010: “On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups.” That could be very important, with Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the balance.

3. Garland’s positions on abortion and social issues are murky. Some liberals are worried that Garland may not be unambiguously pro-choice. Richard Wolf of USA Today writes: “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.”

4. Garland would maintain the Court’s demographic profile. He is the second Chicagoan Obama has nominated. He is no “wise Latina,” and is the first man Obama has chosen. But Garland, like Scalia, is a graduate of Harvard Law, keeping the number of Crimson justices at five. If confirmed, he would also be the fourth Jew on the Court, preserving the odd exclusion of evangelical Protestants.

5. Republicans have supported Garland in the past. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)41%
in particular has been outspoken in his support for Garland as the best Republicans could expect from the Clinton administration. More recently, he suggested he would welcome Garland’s nomination but predicted that Obama would make a more ideological pick. That makes Garland harder for the GOP to oppose.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;553918]Here ya go:



1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.

2. Garland has favored environmental regulations. As SCOTUSblog noted in 2010: “On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups.” That could be very important, with Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the balance.

3. Garland’s positions on abortion and social issues are murky. Some liberals are worried that Garland may not be unambiguously pro-choice. Richard Wolf of USA Today writes: “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.”

4. Garland would maintain the Court’s demographic profile. He is the second Chicagoan Obama has nominated. He is no “wise Latina,” and is the first man Obama has chosen. But Garland, like Scalia, is a graduate of Harvard Law, keeping the number of Crimson justices at five. If confirmed, he would also be the fourth Jew on the Court, preserving the odd exclusion of evangelical Protestants.

5. Republicans have supported Garland in the past. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)41%
in particular has been outspoken in his support for Garland as the best Republicans could expect from the Clinton administration. More recently, he suggested he would welcome Garland’s nomination but predicted that Obama would make a more ideological pick. That makes Garland harder for the GOP to oppose.[/QUOTE]


Thanks. His anti gun stances and his vote to make against the DC case is what causes me great concern.

All the other issues are important but without an armed public nothing else matters as without guns nothing could be changed if push ever came to shove. Our founding fathers realized that having the ability for the people to arm themselves and defend their homes/states the world would be a better place. After all that is exactly what they did against the British when the Brits occupied North America. If our founding fathers had been deprived of guns we would still be a British colony.