Gorsuch won’t make a difference. As long as Kennedy and Roberts are there.
I am not a real strong advocate of open carry. When in a firefight in the military, being able to identify automatic weapons by setting your gun to auto will direct fire toward you in most cases as they recognize your auto use. Open carry of a firearm can trigger a response a lot like it as the shooter will identify your capacity and using any common sense, with open up on you first.
Sometimes there is something to be said about what they don’t see.
rwood
“It is unknown when the Supreme Court will hear the case. Presumably, it will be this year.”
I don’t believe that it can possibly be heard this term, as most oral arguments are done by March. What you have from the end of March until the end of June is the writing and handing down of decisions. We are already in the latter half of May, so it is, in my opinion, highly unlikely that this case will be heard this term. Traditionally, if a Justice is going to retire they announce it immediately after the term ends on June 30th. That way the President can nominate and the Senate can confirm comma the replacement by the beginning of the new term on October 1st. So, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires on June 30th, then Trump will have the opportunity to have another person on the bench. Ditto for Kennedy. I would feel a lot better if there was a replacement for Kennedy, and I would feel magnificently if there was a replacement for Ginsburg, before this case is
Maybe they’ll get around to defining that “Shall Not Be Abridged” thing.
"Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law."
Patriots are reminded the following about the 2nd Amendment (2A). The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), included 2A when he read the Bill of Rights as the main example of enumerated constitutional rights that 14A applies to the states.
See the 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in the middle of the 2nd column from the page in congressional record which contains Bingham’s explanation.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This is another case that I’m surprised has made it as far to the Supreme Court as it has.
Regardless that Hillary didn’t win Oval Office, I question if misguided activist states like California are actually hoping that anti-2A activist justices will politically repeal that amendment from the bench.
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.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
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.