Our constitution was effectively re-written once again this week, as a group of liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the right to gun ownership in public is not protected by the constitution. It makes one wonder, if judges think that the ability to carry a gun isn’t a constitutional right, what does the Second Amendment protect?
This ruling is further proof of the dire need this country has for conservative judge appointments, and no sitting Governor seems more aware of this than Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
In a tweet attacking the senseless conceal carry decision, Abbott leveled a clear threat, “come and get it.”
Unfortunately for the Governor, state executives and legislators are being stripped of their rights to create and enforce the laws in their own states. Instead, activist judges have decided to grant themselves lawmaking power in order to push their personal agendas.
Continue reading on the next page to see the Court of Appeal’s shockingly absurd decision:
Crazy It is almost like they think the second Amd was for the set up and to maintain a well regulated militia or something, where do they get this stuff?
Hi to all you gun nuts!!!
The states simply have to say no. Give the courts the big middle finger. We are not ruled by unelected beauracrats.
James Whyte in common parlance of the time the bill of rights was written, well regulated meant train and supplied. You say you’re a teacher? Dear god I hope its not english or history…
Time to defy the court. How many divisions does the 9th Circuit have? How much of a fight do they have in their stomach?
James Whyte, “well regulated” does not mean regulated by the gov’t. “Well regulated”, means “of good working order” or “functioning as intended”.
Well regulated by the gov’t would be stupid since one of the purposes of the 2nd is to protect us “from” the gov’t.
So, in fact, it is you that doesn’t understand the phrase, “well regulated”.
All these educated folks can’t seem to understand ” shall not be infringed”!
James Whyte, you say that all rights have limits. That may be true, however, too many limits on those rights leads to a loss of those rights. What if the current administration signed an executive order stating that you could not speak ill of Islam? What’s the problem? It’s just a limit on the 1st amendment. Limits to Constitutional rights are good, right?
We need to reign in the gov’t before they run us over.
There are enough gun laws, we need enforcement of those laws.
We do not have a gun problem. We have a mental health problem. If the administration was actually concerned with public health and safety, they would increase funding in mental health instead of cutting it.
So, you don’t think “well regulated” means “well regulated”…. Isn’t that precious. In the parlance of the times, there was no such thing as an assault weapon or atomic bomb. Fortunately, the Supreme Court knows what “well regulated” means when they upheld the Constitutionality of State bans on assault weapons this week. Since you all seem to know what the framers of the Constitution intended, why not let the Supreme Court in on the secret?
there is no such executive order telling folks of whom to not speak ill…. any such order would obviously be unconstitutional. We have a gun problem AND a mental health problem… it’s NOT an either/or proposition. The President did NOT cut mental health funding!! The GOP Congress has the power of the purse and they have SLASHED funding for the CDC. But, Roger, your first sentence is true…. the rest… not so much.