Federal District Judge Wimes Creates Novel Excuses to Rule 2A Protection Act Unconstitutional

AmmoLand ^ | March 29, 2023 | Dean Weingarten

[paulcissa]

Nothing in the Constitution gives individual federal judges the power to overturn the laws passed by state legislatures. That power has been interpreted into the Constitution by the courts. That power can just as easily be denied by the states.

This is all one needs to know. The judge has no jurisdiction in state law. He should be politely instructed to pound sand.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Yet in 1857 the SCOTUS ruled that one of the rights of citizens is “the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.

“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;

and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”

Paragraph 77 in the link below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Obviously he wants a return to the Jim Crow laws of the past, for everyone.

[linMcHlp]

bkmk

[bobbo666]

It is parallel to illegal alien sanctuary rules.

Tit for tat.

Otherwise, bugger off. Mo will enforce its laws and the Feds can go pound sand. Wanna face off with the Mo national guard? Fine, let’s rumble.

[faithhopecharity]

Good point. Fed drug laws included.

[iontheball]

You can start here:

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Argued:
December 3, 1996
Decided:
June 27, 1997
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
The federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns.

Read More Mobile Navigation
Syllabus
OCTOBER TERM, 1996

Syllabus

PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996-Decided June 27,1997*

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers’ backgrounds, note following 18 U. S. C. § 922, and command the “chief law enforcement officer” (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, § 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions’ constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background-check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background-check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional.

Read More Mobile Navigation
Opinions
Opinions & Dissents
Hear Opinion Announcement - June 27, 1997

[combat_boots]

Attorney for Daniel Riley who struck Janae Edmondson causing her to lose both her legs is here for a hearing to enter not guilty plea. No one from St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office is present, and the defense attorney says he has yet to receive a copy of the indictment— Christine Byers (@ChristineDByers) April 7, 2023