Meanwhile, what is our supposedly “pro-gun” administration doing about states that want to make U.S. gun ownership more restrictive than those of many foreign countries such as the ones cited above? Is it lifting a finger to oppose them and enforce the Bill of Rights against state infringements? To the contrary, it’s upholding federal infringements against “states’ rights.” [More]Like the quote asks, "Why would you trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants less than 1 mile away?"
4 comments:
Yesterdays supreme court ruling said “incorporated bill of rights protections are enforced against the states under the fourteenth amendment according to the same standards that protect the personal rights against federal encroachment. Thus if a bill of rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires”.
How does that not apply to 2A???????????????
Regarding Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
As gun owners, we are painfully aware of the assaults against the Second Amendment and First Amendment rights to complain about those assaults. How many of us have shouted out that the US Constitution/Bill of Rights guarantees our right to own firearms and "shall not be infringed", only to be heard by deaf ears by the executive and legislative branches?
That said, we need to keep in mind the entire Constitution - specifically the separation of powers and their functions as it applies to the Second Amendment.
As long as the population keeps electing legislators who do not support the Second Amendment, they will keep passing laws taking away our rights at the state and federal levels step-by-step. Of course, Presidents in the past have been all too willing to go along with those laws. And, as David pointed out, even President Trump signed the anti-bump stock legislation, which rightly begs the question, "Why?" President Trump promised the Second Amendment was safe.
As we all know there are three branches of government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial. When it comes to Constitutional issues, including the Second Amendment, it is the Judicial branch that we should be most focused on. Presidents come and go. Legislators come and go. But it is the decisions of the Supreme Court that establish what is and is not unconstitutional and have decades long lasting effects. David points out that the States have acknowledged the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This also applies to the Supreme Court rulings which are binding on all State and local courts.
My personal opinion is that laws passed by various local, state and federal governments need to be challenged by defendants who have been charged violating those laws, and let them work their way up to the Supreme Court, whose decisions are then binding on all of the States.
In the past, we have had Appellate and Supreme Court judges who appear to have legislated from the bench, creating law from thin air where Congress has not passed such a law, and at times ruling in ways that are or appear to the layman to be unconstitutional.
Until our Appellate and Supreme Court is full of appointments based on judges who will decide cases based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, individuals and citizens can not win. Legislators can proceed to remove our rights, Presidents that come and go can sign the bills into law. People will be arrested for violations, be convicted and start the process of appeal. But as long as there are gun-hating judges in office who do not follow the Constitution, the appeals cases will lose --- and lead to more anti-gun legislation.
It is for this reason that the progressives have been fighting President Trump's nominations to the Supreme Court and Appellate Court so hard. Who can forget the Judge Kavanaugh hearing spectacle? They do not want the balance of judicial power to tip in favor or the Constitution. Make no doubt about that. The most important line of questioning in the Kavanaugh hearing came from Senator Lindsey Graham. The questions dealt with traitors, US citizens as enemy combatants, treason, and military tribunals. Enemies... domestic, include those who would infringe on the First and Second Amendments.
(more)
(Continued)
The Supreme Court is currently still not a court to be trusted, although President Trump's appointees have certainly been a big improvement. The court may appear evenly split at the moment; it is not. One more Justice needs to go to tip the odds more decisively in favor of the Constitution. Progressives know this - and they are desperate to defeat President Trump in 2020 for this very reason.
Like the man or not, President Trump has an overt agenda of restoring the Judicial branch with Federal, Appellate and Supreme court judges who will rule with the founding principals of the country. Until that process is complete, cases involving "shall not be infringed" cases, such as bump stocks, can fail.
Only after the courts are tipped in favor of strict Constitutionalists can the legal battles begin. Only at that time can the legal challenges to bump stock legislation be considered. Only at that time can the legal challenges involving state and federal laws on universal background checks (a near de facto gun registry) begin. Only at that time can legal challenges be made to gifting guns to family members and heirs begin, etc.
Once the Supreme Court is back to being a majority Constitutional court, what is needed are cases involving bump stock violations and all the rest of the gun laws, and defendants willing to fight the cases all the way to the top.
Nothing can be truly successful until the courts are stacked with judges who rule in favor of the constitution. This process of getting judges approved is going to take a while. Although President Trump is working at lighting speed in to appoint good judges, Congress is fighting him and delaying as much as possible. Why? They are hoping to get him out of office in 2020 for the purpose of replacing him with one of their own. And they don't care if it is a (R) or (D) - just as long as it isn't President Trump.
The anti-second amendment folks run deep in both parties. Should gun owners not recognize the importance of what President Trump is doing in this regard (first things first - appoint judges who will rule with the Constitution) and vote him out of office in 2020, my personal opinion is that gun owners will have shot themselves in the foot. Both parties will resume installing anti-constitutional judges given the chance. It is the only way they can ensure they stay in power and resume the march to a totalitarian society.
The only other way to handle this issue is a nationwide sweep of all legislative offices, local, state and federal, with pro-Second Amendment legislators who will repeal all guns laws, which is much more difficult to achieve.
The stakes are very high. This goes beyond the Second Amendment. It is about the survival of our country.
Post a Comment