Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
...This Court's Constitutional Orphan'
On Tuesday, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering rebuke to his Supreme Court colleagues, as well as to lower courts that have refused to treat the Second Amendment with the same level of honor as other rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Thomas wrote a dissent against his Supreme Court colleagues refusing to take up the case of California’s 10-day waiting period for buying a gun. Under California law, gun buyers — even those who already own guns — must wait ten days before picking up their guns from the store. It doesn’t matter whether the background checks have already been run; purchasers must wait. The idea is that these potential buyers will have second thoughts about owning a gun, and decide not to pick up the gun after all.
The state of California provided little or no evidence to show that such cooling-off periods impact in any way either suicide rates or crime rates, particularly as applied to those who already have gun licenses and concealed carry permits. That didn’t stop the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from upholding the law on the basis that the purchaser “may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd.” That contention was entirely speculative, of course.
But this is the lowest possible standard for constitutional review. As Thomas points out, the Heller case says Courts may not “decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worthinsisting upon.” The Court explicitly shot down “rational-basis scrutiny.”
All of this, wrote Thomas “is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right. If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”
We have no control of our government they use us like slaves. We all ned to go yo DC like we did in 2009.
I suggest people study the United Nation's policy on the Right to bear arms, the Report of the Commission on Global governance and State Dept. Publication 7277.
Why should we care what the UN has to say about our Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms? Just asking....
It makes sense to keep track of what the enemy thinks and plans.
Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. The UN policy regarding a 2nd Amendment Right is that it doesn't exist. This Right is absent in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
State Department Publication 7277 is titled "The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." These documents are available on line.
In referring the America's UN membership in Senate testimony on May 11, 1955, FORMER AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT CARL RIX TESTIFIED THAT: “Congress is no longer bound by its Constitutional system of delegated power….., Congress may now legislate as an uninhibited body with no shackles of delegated powers under the Constitution. Our entire system of government of delegated powers of Congress has been changed to a system of undelegated power without amendment [of the Constitution] by the people….”
We should care for if there is to be hope of MAGA America must control its own destiny which requires getting out of the UN, a constitutionally compliant monetary policy (see http://thecnc.org/Documents/DebtReduction.htm) and shedding America of the ungodly and unconstitutional debt that is a result of this policy.
Good on him!
Justice Thomas is right ONLY in regard to those cases which are federal in nature. The Supreme Court has no authority over any State's firearm laws since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be applicable to the States. The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was to apply restraints ONLY to the general government. (The transcripts of the convention bear out this historical fact!)
The court certainly had authority to hear Heller in 2008 because Heller was associated with a federal enclave. But there was NO Constitutional authority to hear McDonald in 2010, because the case was between a citizen of a State and the State itself, and because the 2nd Amendment forbids the US General Government from making laws regarding the right to keep & bear arms. Hence, since federal arms laws are disallowed to the Legislative Branch, they must also be disallowed to the Judicial Branch. (e.g. Supreme Court and all subordinate courts constructed by Congress!)
Unfortunately for all of us, the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy and the 2010 McDonald case dealt (what will become) a death blow to the right to keep and bear arms in the several States through the illegal doctrine of "Incorporation" of the 2nd Amendment through the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" clause. That means that whatever the Supreme Court says now about the right to keep & bear arms will apply to the several States. That also means that the "Reasonable restrictions" upheld in Heller/McDonald will ALSO apply to the several States. Once the Supreme Court ‘owns’ any part of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the States, the trouble begins. (This dates back to the period of reconstruction, but most notably Gitlow v New York in 1925!)
So… What does this mean to the right to keep & bear arms? Well, it means that a case concerning (for instance) the topic of permitless carry (incorrectly called "Constitutional carry") coming before the Supreme Court could nullify existing permitless carry legislation in States such as Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, & so on! (In the same way the infamous 'gay marriage' opinion nullified States' laws on homosexual unions in the several States!)
Justice Thomas is a smart guy... But he needs to understand that since McDonald, so-called '2nd Amendment' cases that come before the Supreme Court will VERY likely bring unwanted restrictions upon States which have more lenient gun laws. Centralizing arms control is completely contrary to the federal design! But they’re gonna do it anyway.
For the reasons I’ve stated above, we'd best hope that the S.C. NEVER hears another State gun case!
Best regards, Pete
When the government is afraid of the people, there is freedom.
When the people are afraid of the government, there is tyranny.