Freedom's Safest Place | You Haven't Met America

[M]

[M]

Here is an intelligent dissertation by a Justice in defense of our Constitutional rights i.e. the 2nd amendment. He also shows the deliberately short sightedness of the Liberal Progressive Socialist factions and their propaganda to remove all the guns from Law Abiding Citizens. 

Source; http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/03/23/justice-thomas-as...

 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “speak[s] truth to power” on gun rights, but unfortunately power couldn’t care less. (Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images)

amicus

Justice Thomas had not asked a question during oral arguments since 2006 when, during the arguments in Voisine v. United Stateson February 29, he posed a question to the government’s counsel, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein.

Immediately, the anti-Thomas press, always eager to portray the justice as a clueless incompetent (after all, he rejects most of the leftist notions about the role of government), indulged in nasty headlines such as “It Speaks!” Imagine the furor if a leftist icon were called “it.”

Exactly what is Voisine about and what did Justice Thomas ask?

The case deals with a seemingly dry question of statutory interpretation: Does a misdemeanor crime that requires only a showing of recklessness qualify as a crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S. Code Sections 921 (a)(33)(A) and 922 (g)(9)?

That latter part of the U.S. criminal code is known at the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a.k.a the Lautenberg Amendment, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It makes it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor ever to have anything to do with firearms: shipping or transporting them, owning or using them, even possessing ammunition.

One strike and you’re out under this law.

In the two cases from Maine joined in Voisine, the defendants had been convicted of reckless domestic violence misdemeanors and were later found in possession of firearms, leading to their prosecution for violating the federal gun ban. They moved to have the cases dismissed on the grounds that the Maine statute, under which someone can be convicted for intentional, knowing or merelyreckless conduct isn’t covered by the Lautenberg amendment. The trial court ruled against their motions and they appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed with one judge dissenting. (If you want much more detail about the case, Rory Little’s post on SCOTUSblog has it.)

Ms. Eisenstein had just finished her argument that the First Circuit’s decision should be upheld when Justice Thomas spoke up: “Can you think of another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

Taken aback, she floundered for a reply and Justice Thomas interjected, “You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which at least as of now is still a constitutional right.” Again, he put the question: “Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law?”

Ms. Eisenstein admitted that she knew of no other instance where a misdemeanor can have that effect, but tried this route of escape: “Other examples, for example in the First Amendment context, have allowed for suspension or limitation of a right to free speech or even free association in contexts where there is a compelling interest and risk associated in some cases less than a compelling interest under intermediate scrutiny.”

The exchange continued (you can read it in full here) for a while, but when Justice Thomas gets back to the First Amendment, he asks, “Let’s say that a publisher is reckless about the use of children…and it’s a misdemeanor violation. Could you suspend that publisher’s right to ever publish again?”

Eisenstein replies, “Your Honor, I don’t think you could suspend the right ever to publish again, but I think you could limit the manner and means by which…”

Justice Thomas: “So how is that different from suspending your Second Amendment right?”

Point made. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (which Justice Thomas ominously says is “at least for now” a right) is treated as being in a different class from the rest.

Of course, it should not be. In their amicus brief, Gun Owners of America state, “As a preexisting right, the right to keep and bear arms ought to enjoy the same stature as other inalienable rights, most notably, the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.” It ought to, but probably won’t. In fact, the right to keep and bear arms is apt to erode further unless, miraculously, another Second Amendment defender takes the seat of the late Justice Scalia.

(My personal Note on the above; They, the fearless dictators leaders, have no way to control or remove the guns from the hands of the criminal element, and don't believe in the desirability of the people using self protection. What I get from that is the FACT the Progressives want us to be no more than chattel that must beg and plead to be protected by the ruling class. Look throughout history to see how well that has worked for the average citizen. While you are at it look up the dictatorships through history and see how there rulers used the defenselessness of the public to murder the ones that disagreed with their edicts from on high!)

Listen to the video again and be glad you still have a chance to keep the Republic strong. It all boils down two two very important things;

1. This election we have no good candidate for President, so we will need to install a buffer between us, the Republic, the Constitution, and the agenda's of a possibly unworthy President that can do more damage than Obama has done.

The way to do that is to actually do some investigating for yourselves and check out the Candidates running in your State,Precinct, and Local Elections and vote in the most conservative ones you can determine by their past practices and votes on critical subjects.  Regardless Of Which Party They Belong To!!  

 So, you don't have to vote a straight ticket, but you do have to do the Due Diligence in vetting the candidates and then going to vote for them. Also if you think you have to vote for a President, you really don't have to, but that's like everything else, a matter of you and your conscience. 

OH YEAH, you really have to go and vote!

Bear in mind, there will be absolutely no perfect candidates, but if you fail to vote, the possibly worst candidates will get in to continue the havoc that has been visited on the Republic.

2. We must start taking away the power that has been stolen by the pretenders who have used the amendment process to turn the Constitution from a vehicle that was intended to keep the Federal government under control of the States and ultimately the people, into the master of the States and the People. The way to start is to try and get the State Legislatures educated on the facts of the matter and then get them to at the very least, Repeal The 14th,16th,& 17th Amendments either by a COS, or a petitioned for Article V amendment proposal convention!