Posted on 08/13/2019 4:11:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
A handful of Democratic Senators signed onto an amicus curiae brief in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, defending New York City's blatant attack on the Second Amendment. For years, those who live in NYC could transport handguns, as long as it was to a few select gun ranges in the area. If you were a gun owner in NYC and wanted to take your firearm outside of city limits to a different gun range, that wasn't allowed.
The Senators who signed alongside New York City include Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Mazi Hirono (HI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Dick Durbin (IL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY).
According to the group, the Supreme Court should not take up this case because the plaintiffs – gun rights advocates – are looking to "thwart gun safety legislation" and have the desire to "expand the Second Amendment." The other argument they make: the Second Amendment and gun control is a political issue and the Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial, not a legislative body.
Translation: gun control proponents have realized this is a lost cause and, if the Supreme Court decided in the case, this could expand gun rights, not restrict them. This case could and would, more than likely, build upon both Heller and McDonald, which protects a person's right to own a firearm in their home for self-protection.
From the brief (emphasis mine):
The judiciary was not intended to settle hypothetical disagreements. The Framers designed Article III courts to adjudicate actual controversies brought by plaintiffs who suffer real-world harm. This reflects the Framers’ intent that the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, 464 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
"Real-world harm."
Apparently being limited to where you can take your handgun for self-protection isn't "real-world harm."
Apparently a city infringing on a person's Second Amendment rights isn't "real world harm."
So tell us, Senators, what exactly do you deem "real world harm?" We're waiting.
The rationale for this long-settled principle is simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921). Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standing and mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apolitical limitation on judicial power,” confining the courts to their constitutionally prescribed lane. John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993). In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they should not.
Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gunsafety regulations. Particularly in an environment where a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than by adherence to the law, the Court should resist petitioners’ invitation.
The Supreme Court is the highest law in the land. It is the final decision maker and the protector of our Constitutional rights. The justices are supposed to be unbiased, but guess what? We know they're not. We know that some believe in a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Others believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time. Anyone who tries to tell you the Court doesn't have activist judges is straight up lying.
That's why we know RBG, Sotomayor, Bryer and Kagan are pretty much guaranteed to side with liberals. It's why we know Kavanagh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito almost always side with conservatives. Roberts is the toss up.
Democrats can argue that the Court shouldn't get involved in political issues, but it's the dumbest argument they can make. Pretty much every single case the Supreme Court hears is a political issue of some sort. There's a question of Constitutionality that needs to be addressed. If there wasn't, the Court wouldn't get involved.
Gun control proponents, like these Senators, are backtracking because they've realized they put their foot in their mouth. They've realized this case is a big loser for them and it can actually harm their cause.
Haha, do not threaten the court, dummies.
When I used to live in NYC I’d take my licensed pistols to Long Island for range practice all the time. Of course, my un-licensed pistol I’d take to the office, play music really loud, and shoot up boxes of obsolete law books after hours.
That takes an ‘elite’ (Leftist) “education” to un-understand.
Course, the ‘great’ Scalia wasn’t so great, decreeing that “no Right is absolute” vs. Heller as well.
25 posts. FR has really been swirling recently
They know that they don’t have an argument, and are reduced to using desperate threats.
If one is only allowed to transport their firearm from their homes and to the range, and this somehow isn’t a violation of a constitutional right...
THEN.
That would also mean that one only has free speech when travelling from their homes to a range.
Only has freedom of religion.
Only is secure from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Only protected from cruel and unusual punishments.
One would have their civil rights safe ONLY in their homes, and while travelling to or from a gun range.
It’s an absurd argument that the tyrants know they’ll lose.
>
“...protector of our Constitutional rights...”
Ignorance is definitely bliss... There are no “Constitutional rights”... There are only “Constitutional protection” of our unalienable rights...
Morons never fail to get confused between their toes and their nose...
>
Beg to differ.
The Constitution merely lays out the groundwork for govt (what it can (not) do) to a mere handful of mentioned Rights. There is no way for the Constitution to ‘protect’ that while is incalculable.
The *protector* of our inalienable Rights is, has been & always will be “We the People”, same as for our Republic (if we had kept it).
>
Court needs to once and for all say what the Founders meant by “Shall Not Be infringed” After all the Founders wrote quite explicitly about it.
>
Sorry, but I, for one, don’t need 9 black-robed tyrants to legalese that which is quite salient, easily read\parsed\understood English already.
IOW: It does not take 90pg+ to re-state 4 words....esp. when the (Anti)Federalist & numerous writings @ the time already debated (& settled).
THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/897090/posts
Judge Bork on the 2nd Amendment & Gun Control [Free Republic]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096792/posts
The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005558/posts
To all Gun Control Advocates: The “Militia” is not what you think it is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823023/posts
2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659979/posts
Didn’t justice Roberts fly on the Lolita express, Epstein’s plane?
Explains everything...
Does anyone know what BK is???
Brett Kavanaugh?? Is he that good on the 2nd amend.??
Impossible. The Second Amendment is comprehensive and unambiguous. "... [S]hall not be infringed." ALL "gun control laws" violate it.
“What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?”
People like these power-hungry Communists are EXACTLY the reason why the Founders put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution - knowing that people like them would eventually come to power and attempt to impose a tyranny (under the guise of “we only want to help you, and we know better”). The Founders explicitly wanted We The People to have the means in our hands with which to fight any domestic tyranny imposed by the government that they had just created.
Here’s an interesting question for these Communists, and any others, interested in making the 2nd Amendment a dead letter: “Please explain to me how the Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress to issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” could possibly mean anything if ordinary citizens didn’t possess weapons capable of taking on enemy military forces during wartime? As a follow-up, please explain why it is that you wish to continue to limit, and even further infringe upon, the right of the People to keep and bear arms that is the key part of the 2nd Amendment, and how that squares with Congress’ power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Guaranteed that the response will either be completely off topic, or something like “well, that isn’t relevant in the 21st Century” or “hamina, hamina, hamina.”
PHUCK these people - Communists like them murdered my great grandfather in Russia for the “crime” of renting out room in his home to put food on the table, enslaved 1/3 of the world’s population, and generally made the entire 20th Century a misery for billions. Molon Labe, bitchez!
A Well Regulated Militia?
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today: “Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: “To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: “To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”.
The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”! Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth: “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” For those still overcome by propaganda: The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.” The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
“My rights as a US citizen should not vary because of the city, county, or state that I happen to visit or live in.”
My grandfathers could have (but, regrettably, didn’t) walk into the local hardware store, plunk down some cash, and walk out with a full auto firearm (or 6) and ammo for same. No tax stamp, no background check, no permission of the Chief LEO in the area. My father could have (but, regrettably, didn’t) order a 20mm semi-auto anti-tank cannon via mail order. No tax stamp, no background check, no permission of the Chief LEO in the area. I cannot do the same, nor can my children. Our rights (and everyone else’s, as well) are being MASSIVELY violated because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL National Firearms Act of 1934.
Further, in the 1939 case of “U.S. v. Miller,” the US government argued that the NFA was constitutional because it wasn’t a ban, it was only a tax...yet the 1986 FOPA put Title 18, Sectin 922(o) into the US Code, which PROHIBITS any ordinary citizen from paying the $200 tax to obtain a tax stamp to own a full auto manufactured after 5/19/1986. So the signing into law of Section 922(o) effectively rendered the entire NFA illegal - and we only need the Supreme Court to recognize that fact (likely only possible if RBG assumes room temperature and is replaced by an actual Constitutionalist Justice).
Yes, we are simply speaking of RESTORING the full and proper meaning of the 2nd Amendment, not expanding anything. Besides, when we are speaking of basic rights, what is wrong with expanding them? Are these people against us having basic rights strengthened? Yeah, I know, that’s a ridiculous question, because it answers itself - and EVERYONE knows it.
I do not want this SC anywhere near the 2nd. We barely won the last time. I think we need to tolerate the blue state incursions and pray Trump gets another appointment. I believe in the present climate Roberts will screw us but good.
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.