We The People USA

Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

Why Did The Supreme Court Reject Hearing A 2nd Amendment Case?

Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/major-second-amendment-case_566...

(Lets examine this one and see where it goes.Again my opinions will be bold, italicized, and in parenthesis.)

Supreme Court Rejects Major 2nd Amendment Case, And Justice Thomas Has A Fit

He and Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the court's decision not to hear a case that effectively upheld an assault weapons ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a controversial case out of Illinois that effectively upheld a ban on assault weapons as consistent with the Second Amendment.

( to my knowledge "Assault Weapons" are not allowed to be owned by the public without a special permit {There are only about 175,000 machine guns available to be legally purchased by civilians } and The Hughes Amendment is a clear example of the Second Amendment being violated: if the military, law enforcement, and other government agencies can have access to machine guns, should not the citizens who are supposed to comprise those entities be allowed the same? Is not the purpose of the Second Amendment to grant the citizen the same power of the government, to act as further “checks and balances” against an abusive, tyrannical government? It seems that the Founding Fathers would have agreed, given that the citizens used the exact same weapons their military oppressors did in the Revolutionary War.Historical facts verified by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 Source; https://armedcitizensunited.com/fopa-1986/  )

The court's order didn't explain the reasoning behind the decision, but two justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, split with their colleagues and laid out why they would've agreed to hear the case.

Pointing to the Supreme Court's landmark rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago -- which extended the "personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home" -- Thomas said the Illinois decision treated "the Second Amendment as a second-class right."

"There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake," Thomas wrote.

(I must side with Thomas and Scalia on their clear reasoning)

The move by the justices comes amid renewed calls for gun control in the wake of last week's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. During a rare Oval Office address on Sunday, President Barack Obama again urged Congress to enact gun control measures

( I wonder how much of a signal that was to his appointees and the other Justices about his desired outcome? Seems he has a lot of political control over what is supposed to be a non-political government agency.)

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case could be read as an indication of the justices' unwillingness to further define the contours of the Second Amendment in light of the current political climate.

( I agree, they could be waiting for some highly restrictive Second Amendment shredding Legislation to come down from Congress so they can rubber stamp it as Law of the Land.)

MARK WILSON VIA GETTY IMAGESThe Supreme Court has rejected more than 60 cases seeking to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment since the 2008 Heller ruling.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the court warned that the amendment didn't stand for a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," and noted the "longstanding" and "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." 

( to my recollection that so called "Long Standing & Historical Tradition of Prohibition" was only imposed on the indigent Native Americans, and politically unconnected immigrants until the FDR Administration found the first way to defeat the purpose of the Second Amendment citing "Public Safety" as the basis for Officially restricting the ownership of certain firearms by imposing an unreasonable tax and permit quagmire the average citizen could not afford nor negotiate the necessary paperwork to obtain the restricted items without actually banning them. Even the Huges amendment to the FOPA of 1986 did not ban it just restricted even further access through increased cost of items, limiting availability of items,paperwork red tape, and massive government intrusion into the private lives of citizens who wanted to possess the items.)

The case the court declined to hear on Monday, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, stemmed from a local ordinance in the city of Highland Park, Illinois, that banned "assault weapons" -- defined as any semi-automatic firearm that accepts large-capacity magazines and possesses a number of specialized features.

( The Deliberate misnomer used by the media {Assault Weapons} and deliberately classing/confusing/equating them with look alike {Semi Automatic Weapons} is basically the Alynsky tactic used to quell public outcry against the Federal Government's Infringement of Second Amendment Rights, and is used for the emotional impact it has on the segment of the population that has no clue to what  [ASSAULT FIREARM WEAPONS] actually are, and what look alike semi-automatic firearms are NOT!.)

Gun rights advocates attacked the ordinance as unconstitutional. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the ban -- and essentially invited the Supreme Court to clarify whether the scope of the Second Amendment should be extended to include the prohibited weapons.

"If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events," the appeals court said. "If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."

( That ruling is with out a doubt in my mind, the most AGGRESSIVELY STUPID remark/ruling by any justice anywhere. It boils down to the appeals court justice mandating that people give up their Unalienable right to defend themselves in a legal manner, which by the way is supposed to be protected by the Constitution, for a "FEELING OF BEING SAFER" when in fact the public due to this ruling is "EXPLICITLY MORE VULNERABLE THAN EVER BECAUSE OF IT!)

Thomas took issue with what he described as these "potential policy benefits" and said the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be subject to the "freestanding interest-balancing" inherent to the political process.

"If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing," Thomas wrote.

He went on: "We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or ... even future judges think that scope too broad." 

Despite Thomas' misgivings, the Supreme Court's inaction in the Friedman case on Monday is part of a larger pattern of refusing similar gun cases.

One advocacy group has estimated that the justices have turned downmore than 60 cases upholding a variety of gun safety laws -- lending credence to the notion that the high court has no immediate desire to revisit the Heller ruling. 

( I wonder if the Justices have turned down the cases because they are simply waiting for an inevitable shift in the public perception that will be engineered by the Progressive/Elitists using every propaganda tool to bluff the deliberately uninformed public and turn them to their preferred agenda to disarm the public and remove the Second Amendment?)

Still, gun rights proponents may be pinning their hopes on another high-profile case.

In October, an appeals court in New York largely upheld comprehensive gun control legislation passed in the wake of the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. Responding to the ruling, Tom King, the president of a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, said the adverse ruling made him "happy."

"Could I be happier? Absolutely," he told The Buffalo News. "But we're on our way to the Supreme Court."

(The real question here is; Will SCOTUS again deny hearing a Constitutional Argument against a {Prima Facie?} Unconstitutional Law? Will SCOTUS use the US Constitution or New York's Constitution to decide the case? I find it highly suspect that there is this modern proclivity to return to the Original Intent of the Constitution when and only when it's use will facilitate the Elitist/Progressive agendas, and then revert to the States Constitutions when they will facilitate the Elitist/Progressive agenda's.Will Ney York's State Supreme Court weigh in on this before it's sent to SCOTUS for a ruling? I smell Millions of Bloomberg's dollars influencing this case In my Humble Opinion!)

 End of Article. 

[" Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the Federal Government Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."

"Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron vs.Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments."]

I used those two examples from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights )  

to show what seems to be happening with this bouncing back and forth by SCOTUS to promote the Elitist/Progressive Agendas in my opinion. The powers that be seem to want to have it both ways and use whichever supports their current agendas.

Views: 56

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Somehow we must find a way to deal with this rogue SC..There seem to be only Three justices that have any  common sense at all..as Mangus says the SC is overrun with usurpers ...Mac..You are surely on top of everything that comes down the pike...

As the voices of confiscation of legal weapon ownership gather strength, there are but a few steps that may need to be be brought to the fore front :

Gubernatorial EO or other Powers and Authority to up hold 2nd Amendment protections(One example: National Defense Resources Preparedness EO ... March 16,2012 and the structure of other EO's ...

http://govtslaves.info/comprehensive-list-of-executive-orders-under...

 The citizenry to immediately obtain such items before any new POTUS or other branch(s) enacts restriction

 

Continue the HOPE that any restrictive or confiscation maneuvers is held at bay

Add too, is the DOJ threat of action against speech ( broad reach using "Muslim" word only.  indicates that DC is not listening when Radical Islamic Terrorist defines who is trying to irradiate non followers and others.http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-tho... 

SCOTUS too has indicated the position that they will be a part of the Progressive narrative... and that the lines of each branch of the US government is as blurred and gap ridden as the boarders that once defined our country are today,  once all the continents were one major mass known as Pangaea then came a time then the shift brought to life the formation of the continent holding the US....an occurrence is now moving faster than plate tectonics... the One Order where the few decide and all surrender or.........I will let you fill in the OR..... for there are so many we now face.

   

RSS

Badge

Loading…

Online Magazines

Accuracy In Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
American Conservative
Amer Conservative Daily
The American Prospect
Atlanta Const Journal
The Atlantic Monthly
Boston Review
Blacklisted News
The Bulletin
Canada Free Press
Capitalism Magazine
Chronicles Magazine
City Journal
CNS News
CNIN Truth
Conservative Economist
Consortium News
Commentary Magazine
The Conservative Edge
Conservative Outpost
Corruption Chronicals (JW)
The Corzine Times
CounterPunch
The Daily Caller
Daily Mail UK
Deep Journal
Digital Journal
Dissent Magazine
The Economist
Examiner
Florida Pundit
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
The Freemen Institute
The Gouverneur Times NY
The Guardian UK
The Foundry (Heritage)
Free Market News
FrontPage Magazine
Gateway Pundit
The Guardian UK
The Globalist
Harper's Magazine
Harvard Inter Review
The Hill
Human Events
In These Times
The Land of the Free
Liberty Unbound
Mission America
Mother Jones
Monthly Review
The Nation
National Interest
National Ledger
National Review
New Internationalist
The New American
The New Ledger
New Left Review
New Media Journal
News Hounds
Newstin
The New Republic
News Busters
News Fifty
NewsMax
Newsweek
News Daily
News With Views
Online Journal
Oohja.com
The Palestine Chronicle
Planet Daily
Policy Review
Poligazette
Politics Daily
The Post Chronicle
Pravda
The Progressive
Reality Check
The Real News Network
Reason
Real Clear Markets
Real Clear Politics
Red Pepper
Roll Call
Russia Today
Salon
Slate
Spectator Magazine
Spiked
Telegraph UK
Time
Toward Freedom
Townhall
U.S. News & World Report
Utne Reader
Wall Street Journal Magazine
Washington Examiner
The Washington Independent
Washington Monthly
The Weekly Standard
World Net Daily
World Magazine
World Press Review
World Reports
World Tribune
Vanity Fair

© 2024   Created by WTPUSA.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service