THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT 2ND AMENDMENT CASE
Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes@clearwire.net
The Heller Case, involving the challenge to the Washington DC handgun ban, has concerned me for several reasons.
First, my alarms went off when the Supreme Court elected to hear the case after a U.S. District Court found the handgun ban unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds. The Supremes had the opportunity to simply let the ruling stand, but instead they decided to give the matter a full-court consideration. My first reaction was to question why?
Why did the Supremes choose to consider this particular gun-rights case after they refused to review the case of Michael New, who refused to obey orders to wear the United Nations uniform, an order that was clearly contrary to the oath Michael New swore when he joined the military?
The Supreme Court has also refused to review cases of civil rights abuse where so-called national security might be compromised. I have never read anywhere in the Constitution that allowed deprivation of basic constitutional rights on the basis that national security might be compromised. National security is compromised most when individual citizens’ rights are being violated, and our Constitution was written for the benefit of the individual citizen, and not for the benefit of the collective government.
So I am naturally very concerned as to the motive for this Supreme Court to hear the Heller Case.
I have this niggling suspicion the media-reported responses of the justices, who questioned the validity of the DC handgun ban during the initial arguments, were just a preliminary dog & pony show. I don’t know why, but I just have this gut-feeling.
I do know this: The DC gun ban is an outright violation of the 2nd Amendment, from its clear, original intent. Every single comment written into every record of the day by every Framer clearly indicated an intent to make certain that every citizen had the right, not only to keep, but to bear arms as well, and they also made it clear why they wanted the citizens to be armed: They intended for the citizens to have access to arms that would be necessary in order to overthrow a future U.S. Government that strayed off the constitutional reservation into tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting or even personal self-defense. It was put into place to keep all future U.S. Governments from stomping on the rights of the citizens, because the fathers of this nation knew human nature all too well, and they knew that a disarmed citizenry would have no course of action available to them if their own government turned against them.
So yes, I do have very grave concerns with regard to this pending Supreme Court decision. If the current justices are willing to allow cases to stand where American soldiers are given illegal orders to serve an entity separate from the United States, and if they are willing to let a sitting president declare an American citizen like Jose Padilla to be an “enemy combatant”, depriving him of all due process normally strictly enforced for all American citizens, are these same justices also willing to rule that the 2nd Amendment has limitations states can impose to ensure “public safety”?
Such a Supreme Court ruling would come in handy at a time when the United States is facing one of the worst economic shutdowns in U.S. history, with homeless and jobless American citizens living in cars and tents, unable to feed themselves or their children and willing to use violence against a government that had betrayed them. Such a ruling would deflect blame from the central government to the individual state governments and perhaps even to local governments who choose to disarm their citizens and arrest those who refuse to disarm. If you can make a criminal out of a citizen who merely possesses a gun, you can arrest that person before s/he has the opportunity to use the gun individually, and target any citizens attempting to organize resistance long before such resistance can be initiated.
The basic Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are considered “unalienable” rights in a Constitutional Republic, which happens to be the true form of government we were gifted by the founders of this nation. These rights are not subject to change by a majority vote, such as exists in a Democracy, which is a form of government the founders of this nation had nothing but contempt for and specifically condemned.
But if the Supremes rule that individual states can enact laws that restrict or prohibit gun ownership in any way and for any reason, they will have usurped the original intent of the Framers, who specifically wrote Article X of the Bill of Rights to prevent the states from enacting such laws that infringe upon or violate our “unalienable” rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
And it wouldn’t be the first time a Supreme Court did that. Nowhere does the Bill of Rights grant free expression in addition to the right of free speech, but a Supreme Court decision perverted the original intent to include that. Nowhere does our Bill of Rights or our Constitution contain the words, “Separation between church and state”, yet if you ask most folks on the street, they wrongly believe those words do exist in the Constitution. After all, the Hugo Black Supreme Court ruled those words to be the original intent even if the Framers never intended it, and never included those words in the finished document. The liberal Hugo Black Supreme Court wanted it to be that way, so they simply ruled that way, and original intent be damned.
For me and everyone I know, anything less than a solid Supreme Court ruling that fully recognizes the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, will be an outright act of treason. If any allowance is made in that ruling for individual states to prohibit or strictly control guns for any reason, including public safety, the writing is on the wall and we all might as well pull together immediately, overrun Washington DC and reinstall our constitutional government by force.
The moment they come for our guns, even by a Supreme Court ruling that cracks open the door to set the stage, we either choose to fight right then while most of our military is away, or we get the hell out of Dodge. Any other choice is a bad one.
wolfeyes@clearwire.net
The Heller Case, involving the challenge to the Washington DC handgun ban, has concerned me for several reasons.
First, my alarms went off when the Supreme Court elected to hear the case after a U.S. District Court found the handgun ban unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds. The Supremes had the opportunity to simply let the ruling stand, but instead they decided to give the matter a full-court consideration. My first reaction was to question why?
Why did the Supremes choose to consider this particular gun-rights case after they refused to review the case of Michael New, who refused to obey orders to wear the United Nations uniform, an order that was clearly contrary to the oath Michael New swore when he joined the military?
The Supreme Court has also refused to review cases of civil rights abuse where so-called national security might be compromised. I have never read anywhere in the Constitution that allowed deprivation of basic constitutional rights on the basis that national security might be compromised. National security is compromised most when individual citizens’ rights are being violated, and our Constitution was written for the benefit of the individual citizen, and not for the benefit of the collective government.
So I am naturally very concerned as to the motive for this Supreme Court to hear the Heller Case.
I have this niggling suspicion the media-reported responses of the justices, who questioned the validity of the DC handgun ban during the initial arguments, were just a preliminary dog & pony show. I don’t know why, but I just have this gut-feeling.
I do know this: The DC gun ban is an outright violation of the 2nd Amendment, from its clear, original intent. Every single comment written into every record of the day by every Framer clearly indicated an intent to make certain that every citizen had the right, not only to keep, but to bear arms as well, and they also made it clear why they wanted the citizens to be armed: They intended for the citizens to have access to arms that would be necessary in order to overthrow a future U.S. Government that strayed off the constitutional reservation into tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting or even personal self-defense. It was put into place to keep all future U.S. Governments from stomping on the rights of the citizens, because the fathers of this nation knew human nature all too well, and they knew that a disarmed citizenry would have no course of action available to them if their own government turned against them.
So yes, I do have very grave concerns with regard to this pending Supreme Court decision. If the current justices are willing to allow cases to stand where American soldiers are given illegal orders to serve an entity separate from the United States, and if they are willing to let a sitting president declare an American citizen like Jose Padilla to be an “enemy combatant”, depriving him of all due process normally strictly enforced for all American citizens, are these same justices also willing to rule that the 2nd Amendment has limitations states can impose to ensure “public safety”?
Such a Supreme Court ruling would come in handy at a time when the United States is facing one of the worst economic shutdowns in U.S. history, with homeless and jobless American citizens living in cars and tents, unable to feed themselves or their children and willing to use violence against a government that had betrayed them. Such a ruling would deflect blame from the central government to the individual state governments and perhaps even to local governments who choose to disarm their citizens and arrest those who refuse to disarm. If you can make a criminal out of a citizen who merely possesses a gun, you can arrest that person before s/he has the opportunity to use the gun individually, and target any citizens attempting to organize resistance long before such resistance can be initiated.
The basic Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are considered “unalienable” rights in a Constitutional Republic, which happens to be the true form of government we were gifted by the founders of this nation. These rights are not subject to change by a majority vote, such as exists in a Democracy, which is a form of government the founders of this nation had nothing but contempt for and specifically condemned.
But if the Supremes rule that individual states can enact laws that restrict or prohibit gun ownership in any way and for any reason, they will have usurped the original intent of the Framers, who specifically wrote Article X of the Bill of Rights to prevent the states from enacting such laws that infringe upon or violate our “unalienable” rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
And it wouldn’t be the first time a Supreme Court did that. Nowhere does the Bill of Rights grant free expression in addition to the right of free speech, but a Supreme Court decision perverted the original intent to include that. Nowhere does our Bill of Rights or our Constitution contain the words, “Separation between church and state”, yet if you ask most folks on the street, they wrongly believe those words do exist in the Constitution. After all, the Hugo Black Supreme Court ruled those words to be the original intent even if the Framers never intended it, and never included those words in the finished document. The liberal Hugo Black Supreme Court wanted it to be that way, so they simply ruled that way, and original intent be damned.
For me and everyone I know, anything less than a solid Supreme Court ruling that fully recognizes the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, will be an outright act of treason. If any allowance is made in that ruling for individual states to prohibit or strictly control guns for any reason, including public safety, the writing is on the wall and we all might as well pull together immediately, overrun Washington DC and reinstall our constitutional government by force.
The moment they come for our guns, even by a Supreme Court ruling that cracks open the door to set the stage, we either choose to fight right then while most of our military is away, or we get the hell out of Dodge. Any other choice is a bad one.
posted by Chuck Demastus at 3:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home