The Supreme Court Disappoints on the Right to Bear Arms


There are a few things in life that I am absolutely uncompromising on.

When I say uncompromising, I mean I will not budge and will no longer vote for anyone who does not also believe what I believe on at least a  few major issues.

One of them is the Second Amendment. If you are a regular reader, this will come as no surprise. A candidate has no chance with me unless he or she can prove that he or she is an ardent protector of my God-given right to own and carry a weapon.

Let it further be said that we don’t need a Second Amendment to give us that right. The right to defend ourselves is God-given as the Declaration of Independence states.

So imagine my surprise and disgust when we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to leave a bogus New Jersey law intact, limiting a U.S. citizens’ Constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home.

The law in New Jersey states that one must have a “justifiable need” to carry a handgun in public. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment is exactly ONE sentence, separated by 3 commas. The words “justifiable need” are not part of that ONE sentence.

What the heck is wrong with the Supremes? Are we the only ones in this country capable of reading and understanding plain English, which is the language in which the U.S. Constitution was written?

Are we the only ones capable of doing even the most rudimentary research to discover what the founders “original intent” was – how they themselves felt about guns and the right to “bear” them?

Now it’s not that the Supremes ruled that the unconstitutional New Jersey law was okay. I would have pitched a fit, but at least I’d give them an “A” for actually making a decision. No, the spineless Supremes just simply refused to hear the case.

But it is really the three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that should be verbally slapped around. Any other slapping around would be bad and uncalled for.

Two of the three judges ruled in favor of the restrictive New Jersey law stating that even if the Second Amendment does apply to outside the home, the law is still valid.
WHAT??? There is no more obvious anti-gun bias than that. Why don’t they just also say, “And by the way – we know there is supposed to be freedom of speech, but if a state wants to pass a law limiting that, for conservatives only, we’ll say that is valid also.”

I guess it’s easier to make law from the bench than have to go all the way back to the founding era and look it up.

Better yet, why don’t they, as black roped oligarchs that rule over us do, just work off prior “bad law” and “bad court decisions”? That will be easier. Let’s use precedence rather than that dusty old Constitution to determine what is constitutional. That way, we judges can keep stacking one bad decision on top of the other and eventually we can unpin from the Constitution all together.

And that’s what the 3rd Circuit Panel did.

Reason.com reported that the two judges cited a passage from a 2008 Supreme Court decision which stated that “some longstanding” gun restrictions were “presumptively law.”

Again . . . WHAT???

Reason also reported that, “At this time,” the court said, “we are not inclined to address [the original meaning of the Second Amendment] by engaging in a round of full-blown historical analysis.” Besides,” the court added, because the Handgun Permit Law and its antecedents predate the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller, “New Jersey’s legislators could not have known that they were burdening Second Amendment conduct.”

For the third time . . . WHAT??? I can hardly believe what I’m writing. Is this not the definition of abdication? And is it not the laziest thing you’ve heard? So you’re “not inclined” to do your job? Truly stunning. And the New Jersey legislature evidently has no idea of the U.S. Constitution? And that’s a defense of their actions?

It’s like, “I’m tired! I don’t want to do any hard research. Mommy, make it stop!”

These judges should be run out of town on a rail.

Isn’t it their job to research an issue at its foundation, to determine a law’s constitutionality?

As Mark Levin says (and wrote), it’s time for term limits on judges also!

Previous ‘Gay’ Bishop Gene Robinson Pretends to Divorce His Pretend Husband
Next Cinco de Mayo a Red Flag Day in California

Comment