Posted on 03/04/2021 10:38:35 AM PST by gattaca
Judge Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden’s attorney general nominee, has a troubling record when it comes to recognizing Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
In 2007, Garland voted for a review of the case Parker v. District of Columbia — later known as the landmark Heller v. District of Columbia — by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he continues to serve.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah asked about the matter during Garland’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
“The issue was plainly one that would require looking at a deep historical record as to the meaning of the Second Amendment and as to the way it had been applied,” Garland said.
The case originated in 2004 when residents of the District of Columbia brought suit against a ban on handguns.
Judge Emmet Sullivan, of Michael Flynn fame, ruled in favor of the D.C. government’s motion to dismiss the suit, rejecting “the notion that there is an individual right to bear arms separate and apart from service in the Militia.”
The Second Amendment states: “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.”
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit found, in a 2-1 decision, that Sullivan was in error.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Methinks we’re at the point that we’ll just tell Garland and associates to Molon Labe. And mean it. (Both meanings of “mean”.)
Our rights do not come from government, therefore they cannot take them away. People will die to protect the second amendment. Politicians will die trying to eliminate it.
Why are democrats so afraid of honest people with guns?
I think we all know, they want to do things that they would deserve to get shot over.
He needs to be opposed unanimously. This 2A line has to be held and if it can’t be held, it’s gonna be a real bad time for the GOP.
see my tag line for further reading on this subject.
“Merrick Garland’s 2nd Amendment Record Offers Grim Forecast for Americans’ Gun Rights”
Why? Does Garland suddenly take precedence over the bill of rights?
Americans can issue “grim forecasts” too.
Isn’t he the creep who said BLM isn’t terrorist because it waits until night to burn down police stations?
The more these people infringe on the second amendment, the more the Trump Supreme Court is going to slap them back to reality with binding precedents that will set the stage for generations to come.
It’s time to take back our rights from a century of infringements. Alan Gura, we need you now more than ever!
See my tagline.
OBVIOUSLY, these “judges” are educated above their intelligence: The Const. pertains to GOVT, not We the People
Excellent and bears repeating, thanks for the new tagline!
Bwahahahaha
You still think that Federal Judges will stand up against the Federal Government. They are one in the same. CJ Roberts proved that.
The second amendment has been decimated going back to the National Fire Arms act in 1934 banning machine guns and short barreled rifles and shotguns, or the Gun Control Act of 1968 which regulated sales and created the FFL, or the assault rifle ban in 1968, or the numerous state gun control laws in places like California or the Northeast.
Gun owners have never been willing to die to protect the second amendment, politicians have never died for passing gun control, and it would probably be counter productive anyway, triggering even more gun control.
Better to make a friendly argument for guns, invite people to go shooting, give some money to the group you think best represents gun owners (e.g., Gun Owners of America), and win elections. It is more practical than fantasizing about a civil war that will never happen.
Any action that he might take concerning gun control would be "an infringement", putting him in violation of his oath of office and necessitating that he be fired or impeached.
He'd have to get in line for that. A very long line.
Many states have just passed broad gun freedom laws, including empowering sheriffs to arrest Fed agents who try to grab guns.
They will give the Feds the respect they deserve.
Judge Taney said it best in the Dred Scott Decision. If Blacks were considered citizens they would have the same rights as a white man, one of which was “The right keep and carry arms wherever they went!
Then he spent over 500 paragraphs to “prove” blacks were not citizens.
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
Yeah. Maybe it isn’t really tyranny if they kick your door down at night.
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.