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:
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.
the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cannot override the Supreme Court of the United States. They’ve already ruled on the Second Amendment!
Yes. ALL gun-control laws go against the Constitution.
ALL!
First, they have to be written and adopted by the government. The Constitution guarantees that government to be of a republican form. A republican form is representational. The Constitution requires one representative for no more than 50,000 men, women, and children. We have 435 Representatives in Congress and a population of over 310 Million men, women, and children. 310,000,000 divided by 435 is Oligarchy, not republican by any means.
So gun-control laws are adopted by (1)an unconstitutional form, oligarchy, and (2)an unconstitutional process, deprivation of representation, to begin with. Is it a wonder why Congress would worry about guns?
Second. Gun control laws (1)include proscribed minimum penalties, and (2)describe things by precise partialities to, both, classes of people and classes of property, rather than generalities of an act’s simple results. Such form are ‘bills of attainder’ and are prohibited by the constitution twice, at both federal and state levels.
Third. Gun control laws are adopted AFTER, in response to, because of, some particularly dramatic momentary cluster of events. Such system of ex post facto laws are prohibited by the constitution twice, at both federal and state levels.
Fourth. While the federal government is constitutionally obliged to maintain a navy forever, it is equally prohibited from spending money on an army for more than 2 years at a time. Consider the job and equipment differences here; a navy is comprised of ships of war located away from the sailor’s house in town. An army is a guy-wid-a-gun everywhere. If, like Switzerland, every man, woman, and child was never more than 20 feet away from a Minimum Shoulder Launched Missile _AND_ Main Battle Rifle, what type of logic could justify “no more than two years” financing for an army somehow means automatic renewal?
Constitution say Navy=Maintain, army=no more than 2 years.
So far, you’ve already broke 4 constitutional prohibitions against gun control Seven ways, and we’re still only in the first half of that document.
Fifth, the constitution provides a specific body of personnel to “execute the laws”. The constitution labels that body “the militia” and demands the “organizing, arming, and disciplining” be done by the federal government BUT the “appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia” be the duty of the States. Every “trooper” and “cop” that ain’t organized by the feds, armed by the feds, disciplined by the feds, selected by the States, and trained by the States, AIN’T A constitutional Law Enforcement Officer.
So Enforcement of gun control is now added to the list making the total Five violations in at least 7 ways and remember, we’re still in Article 1 of the constitution.
There are 6 more Articles before we get to the first amendment’s ADDITIONAL reasons for the 2nd amendment.
Sensible gun laws while maintaining the 2nd amendment, like our president has advocated.
Lol…just like sensible health care reform
Florida’s in good hands too.
What’s senseless is putting yourself or your loved ones in the position where some criminally intent individual can bring about great harm or death while you simply sit defenseless hoping that someone will save you.
Don that was a pretty senseless response! You won’t say that if you got robbed one night walking down the street. Sheep!
Or punished by death!
Must be drinking that toxic tap water in Alabama! You’re brain is fried granny!