Posted on 06/26/2017 10:51:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a major case out of California that asked whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms includes the right to carry firearms in public. By refusing to get involved, the Court left in place a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that denied constitutional recognition to the right to carry.
Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, blasted the Court for its failure to act and for its "distressing trend" of treating "the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."
According to Thomas, "the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it." Thomas added, "even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively."
Thomas offered a sharply worded case for why the Court should have taken up the question. Federal circuits, he pointed out, have reached different conclusions and are therefore irrevocably split on this pressing constitutional matter. "This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to 'bear arms' means to 'wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I just did and it did nothing to improve my already bad mood. It's not your fault.
Of course the feds don’t like the Constitution. They never have and they never will. It limits them, something government in their greed, avarice, and lust for power hates, and the Lying Left hates. So what else is new?
Nevertheless, it is up to each of us through our constitutionally sovereign states and elected state representatives to stand against unconstitutional federal acts which are acts of tyranny. Each of us must decide whether we are willing to fight for our God-given and constitutionally-protected freedoms or surrender to tyranny.
The Lying Left won’t give up easily and we’ve got too many POW’s and MIA’s on the Right. Much of the Right also seems lost on our ultimate goal here - and it is not Trump (Trump is a means to the end, Trump is not the goal itself). Our goal is recover our Free Constitutional Republic. No easy task. Nevertheless we are in the right and with God’s help, we will recover our Free Constitutional Republic.
Gorsuch didn't write the dissent in this case. Thomas did and Gorsuch joined with him.
Gorsuch is looking Great! Go Trump!
Most immigrants especially illegals vote for democrats/communists.
Voter id laws = Trump in 2020 for sure and that means up to 4 more conservative justices on the supreme court. Kennedy ,Ginsburg etc cannot hold out another 8 years guaranteed! this is for all the marbles. That’s all we need 1 law voter id and America is saved from the immigrant invasion and unconstitutional laws etc
Now that there is INTERESTING! Thanks! That should be noised around!
You’re welcome.
Doing my durndest. Gotta unfinished website that will hopefully help...
https://sonsofconstitutionalliberty.com/
“if they can water down the 2nd amendment, they can water down anything in the bill of rights.”
They’ve watered down the 10th amendment to the point it is routinely ignored.
Consider that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate civilian-related guns, the fed’s enumerated powers to regulate arms limited to military purposes as evidenced by Clause 12 and 16 as examples, of Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
In other words, the misguided federal courts are arguably not only legislating civilian-related gun laws from the bench, but stealing state powers to do so imo.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, it is disturbing that federal gun regulations for non-military related arms seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
They can take this up in 3 or 4 years, when the SCOTUS is a lock.
Who the hell decides whether to cert or not?
who decides what gets heard?...anyone know? Is it Roberts decision alone?
I don’t think “militia” means soldiers, who are formally enrolled and paid by the government. I think most “militias” are volunteer and recognized by some formal authority, but are not soldiers with a job.
RE: Next up Ginsburg and Kennedy. Next year Souter and the following year Thomas.
Souter is long gone.
It takes four to grant cert....so, where the heck were Alito and Roberts in this case????
So far Gorsuch is a great pick...
if they can water down the 2nd amendment, and they can and do water down anything in the bill of rights.
It’s not the right time yet. Any decision now would need to get Kennedy’s agreement. Better to wait until we have one more conservative Justice.
Prolly had to trade this in order to get the travel ban stay lifted.
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.