The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban on so called “Assault Weapons” (commonly owned semi-automatic rifles) and on standard capacity magazines that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. The petitioners in that case, Stephen V. Kolbe v. Lawrence J. Hogan, JR., have decided to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Such an appeal is called a writ of Certiorari. Most appeals are rejected by the Supreme Court.

In the Fourth Circuit decision, the appeals court claimed that semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds fell outside the protection of the Second Amendment.

This is directly contrary to the decision in U.S. v. Heller, though the Fourth Circuit claimed the opposite based on a fragment of a sentence in the Heller decision. From the petition:

Maryland has banned the most popular semi-automatic rifles and magazines – arms that are indisputably in common use for self-defense – from the homes of its law-abiding citizens.

According to the Fourth Circuit, it was “compelled by Heller to recognize that those weapons and magazines are not constitutionally protected,” App.49, and, therefore, to hold that these common, popular firearms fall outside the Second Amendment and can be banned from the home because they are “ ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’ and ‘most useful in military service.’ ” App.61.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision misinterprets and conflicts with Heller and its progeny, as well as with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, on a central question addressed in Heller: What arms are protected by the core right of the Second Amendment – the right of law-abiding citizens to keep arms in common use for self-defense in the home.

Heller struck down a prohibition on the firearms most commonly chosen for self-defense – handguns – even though handguns are arguably more “dangerous” than other firearms, and even though firearms other than handguns remained available for use in self-defense.

This Court recognized and protected the principle at the heart of the interests enshrined by the Second Amendment: The individual – and not the government – retains the right to choose from among common arms those that they believe will best protect their person, family, and home. Id. at 629 (“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”).

This is an area of law the Supreme Court should address. Handguns are used in crime, murder and even mass killings far more often than semi-automatic rifles. If handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, it would be absurd to conclude that semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are not.

Moreover, the Second Amendment has a clear military component. If one purpose of the Second Amendment is to be able to form effective militias, then the right to keep and bear effective militia weapons is protected. Semi-automatic rifles are the epitome of a militia weapon.

In a case reviewed by the Supreme Court, but not addressed by the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously held, in the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), that:

The Court has held 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Rifles, as a group, are arms that are least likely to be used in homicides. The Fourth Circuit cleverly avoided considering that fact by preemptively excluding those rifles from the protection of the Second Amendment. Because they excluded the rifles from Second Amendment protection, the Court avoided the requirement to apply strict scrutiny to the law.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear Second Amendment cases. They recently refused to hear the Peruta case from the Ninth Circuit.

No one knows if the Court will grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The reluctance to hear Second Amendment cases may change if President Trump appoints another Justice Gorsuch to the Court.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

68 Responses to Maryland “Assault Weapon” Ban Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

  1. If Trump does nothing else than appoint Gorsuch and hopefully another conservative to the Supreme Court he will have been one of the most successful presidents in United States history
    The founders had just waged a successful war against the most powerful military in the world at the time and the second amendment was clearly intended to include weapons of war

    • That is all I have ever hoped from him. Just do that one thing and then self destruct all you want Donald.

      • That was the primary agenda, but if he can stay on and continue to appoint judges at lower courts I won’t complain one bit.

        Also who knows – we just might pick up another supreme court seat within the next 4-8 years.

  2. All we need is for RBG to encounter a bucket of water in the near future and we can use this case to overturn every state level ban along with the NFA.

  3. Below is an excerpt from Federalist Paper #29. I suggest everyone read the entire document. From reading this document it seems apparent that the founding fathers were not at all concerned with protecting individual homes from criminals when crafting the Second Amendment. They were concerned with large standing armies and how they could be used to subjugate the citizenry.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

    “By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

    • Fail.

      One brief excerpt from one document does not give you ANY justification to conclude “it seems apparent that the founding fathers were not at all concerned with protecting individual homes from criminals when crafting the Second Amendment.”

      This is the same faulty reasoning that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals just OVERTURNED in their invalidation of DC’s carry ban. The INVALID ruling tried to make the case that since Heller placed priority on keeping arms in the home then therefore carrying arms on your person must not be important. Again, FAIL.

      Try reading Heller. You just might learn something.

        • TFred may have been a bit rude, as I myself am too often, but he isn’t wrong that it appears that Greg is saying (wrongly) that Publius (Hamilton, Jay, Madison) and (wrongly) by extension all of the founding fathers were not concerned with citizen personal defense when they wrote that passage. I posit that is obvious that they were only mostly concerned with the standing army issue when they wrote that passage.

        • I interpreted this as the point he was trying to make:

          “From reading this document it seems apparent that the founding fathers were not at all concerned with protecting individual homes from criminals when crafting the Second Amendment.”

          If I missed some other mysterious point, well maybe he shouldn’t have used that as the lead into his post…

      • Umm did you read that D.C. circuit opinion, Fred? It held that carrying arms outside the home stands on equal footing with the right to keep arms in the home, and that therefore D.C.’s “may issue” concealed carry law was unconstitutional since it barred the vast majority of citizens from exercising their second amendment rights. Are you saying that this was invalid, and that there is no right to bear arms outside the home?

        • Did you read my post?

          “the same faulty reasoning that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals just OVERTURNED.”

    • That passage in no way indicates that they weren’t in interested in citizen self defense, it only makes it clear that they intended an armed citizenry to be a counter to the formation and danger of a standing army. I’d also posit that the part about protecting ones own rights by force of arms is the right to self-defense and it doesn’t specify that they should defend themselves only against government encroachment on their rights.

    • The Federalist Papers were written to promote ratification of the Constitution. Part of what they needed to do was convince the Anti-federalists that the Constitution, as proposed (without the Bill of Rights), was sufficient to prevent the Federal government from becoming too powerful and infringing on the people’s natural rights.

      While the Federalist Papers are invaluable documents to help us understand the goals of our founders, they do not limit the scope or the meaning of any of the Constitutional Amendments that followed.

    • “From reading this document it seems apparent that the founding fathers were…”

      You really can’t come to any sweeping conclusions about the opinions of all of the founders based on any single Federalist Paper, or even several Federalist Papers; they were written by three men who had their own opinions. Granted, some of the opinions and ideas held by the “Publius” were common among many of the other founders (such as their view of standing armies) but by no means can it be argued that all founders were in lock step with these three men on all matters.

      Federalist 29, specifically, was written by Alexander Hamilton, who many would argue was one of the biggest statists of all the founders, so his opinions should definitely be taken with a grain of salt, and should definitely not be construed to fully and accurately represent the opinions of all the other founders.

      As ActionPhysicalMan and Curtis already noted, Federalist 29 was never intended to be an exhaustive exploration of the utility of the right to bear arms. As a whole, those essays can only give us some degree of insight into the thinking process of the founders and their views on how, generally, they felt the philosophy of natural rights should apply in the formation of the new America.

    • I’ve got to agree with Greg here.* The main point of the 2A is so that we can protect ourselves from the government, not petty criminals. That’s the core of the 2A, not self defense. The only reason the courts aren’t going with that is because that would lead to “radical” results like the NFA, GCA, and Hughes amendment all being unconstitutional. (That interpretation wouldn’t prevent the regulation of heavy artillery, let alone nukes and stuff).

      *Sure, he went to far with the “not at all concerned” language.

  4. Kennedy really needs to go. I’m very afraid of what might happen if some of these critical cases make it to the court, and Kennedy rules the wrong way. A loss is a far greater tragedy than waiting another year for Kennedy to be gone.

    • Kennedy’s unwillingness to retire this session is EXACTLY the reason the four Conservative Justices have blocked granting cert to any Second Amendment case. They cannot predict how Kennedy will rule on the cases and without that crucial 5th vote the issue may go against the Second Amendment. With the SCOTUS tradition of reluctance to overturn “stari decisis” rulings an unfavorable Second Amendment decision could seriously impair gun rights for a long time to come.

      I think we will see a flurry of 2A cases the moment a solid Conservative Justice replaces either Kennedy or any of the Liberal Justices.

      • Except the four conservative Justices haven’t blocked 2A cases from coming before the Supreme Court. In fact, Scalia and Thomas wrote a dissent to the denial of cert in Friedman v. Highland Park, then Thomas and Gorsuch wrote a dissent to the cert denial in Peruta.

      • Cliff’s point is valid, and I actually hope it is true.

        Since it only takes four justices to grant certiorari, it’s not just the wacky liberals plus Kennedy who are blocking the taking of these cases. And that is a good thing when you think about it, it adds credence to the possibility that they really are looking out for the long-term success of these issues.

        The dissent in granting the writ of certiorari by Thomas and Gorsuch was valuable for the future as well. Sort of setting ground work for when these cases do get heard.

        • The four conservative justices did not ‘block’ the case being taken up and therefore the point based on that erroneous fact is certainly not valid.

  5. It seems SCOTUS does not want to deal with these issues though at some point IMO it needs to as we are having a few judges at the circuit court level force on millions of law abiding citizens their personal views on gun control. The scary part to me is that it appears that there are only three originalist justices on SCOTUS with John Roberts siding more and more with the liberals making me wonder if he will be the next Anthony Kennedy. I fear that if this goes to SCOTUS now it will be upheld and there will be quickly a flood of similar bans, or worse, at the state level especially in blue states.

    My gut feel is that the appeal will not be accepted by SCOTUS at this time.

  6. “Semi-automatic rifles are the epitome of a militia weapon.”

    No. No, they are not.
    SELECT FIRE rifles are the epitome of a militia weapon.

    Let us hope that SCOTUS hears this case, and in its decision reminds us all, in no uncertain terms, that the right to own military arms is exactly what the 2A was designed to protect.

      • To be fair, automatic fire has it’s place with squad tactics and suppressive fire. But true light machine gun are better in that role then a select fire rifle.

    • Disagree. A militia is the citizen, and is often not as trained in tactics or weaponry as a regular service member. Look at the difference between the militias and the regular Army at the time the 2nd Amendment was written. If I had to raise a militia in that context it would be semi-auto.

  7. Writ of Certiorari.

    Anyway, I don’t feel good about our chances unless someone from the wrong side of the Heller decision is replaced.

    • Please change write to writ. Please.

      “Because they excluded the rifles from Second Amendment protection, the Court avoided the requirement to apply strict scrutiny to the law.” This statement is all sorts of wrong.

      First, he Supreme Court hasn’t said anything about the appropriate test for arms other than commonly owned arms cannot be banned. The SC has never, to my knowledge, examined any 2A case under any level of scrutiny.

      The problem with the whatever level of scrutiny approach to the 2A is that the government will always have a strong enough interest to justify restricting 2A rights. That eliminates about half the test. This is why the SC has never used one of the scrutiny approaches as a test for the 2A.

      Second, plenty of courts have applied intermediate scrutiny after ruling that the law infringed on 2A rights. If the 2A is subject to the scrutiny tests of constitutionality, there is plenty of law, such as 1A law, that suggests that many 2A restrictions are only subject to only intermediate scrutiny.

      • You know, if we’re going to compare 2A analysis to 1A (which I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing), I think restricting the possession of weapons prior to any unlawful use is parallel to prior restraint on speech–which is generally per se unconstitutional.

        • Prior restraint – judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful. Prior restraints are actually pretty common. Every gag order is a prior restraint.

          The prior restraint analogy would be appropriate to a court ordering someone to give up their guns (or maybe just specific guns), not a general ban on guns for everyone.

        • Gag orders happen after a judge determines that public comment about a particular case would actually harm the justice system by preventing a jury from being impartial (and also from having a pseudo-trial in the media). When I choose to purchase or carry a gun, I am actually harming no one.

          I intended the comparison with prior restraint to point to unlawful pre-censorship: only giving certain “approved people” the right to speak/publish/have guns, or previewing and limiting beforehand what can be said/published/possessed.

        • Prior restraints are specific people being told not to say specific things.

          Most laws about speech are restrictions on the time, manner, and place of the speech. A good example of one allowed as constitutional is a noise ordinance. There are also laws about who can say what. For example, a private person who has gotten hold of classified documents can publish them (Julian Assange). A government employee/contractor cannot (Edward Snowden).

  8. The Liberal, anti-gun Progressives in this country will do anything to void the US Constitution including using the courts to create false arms criterion that excludes the firearms that the people most want! I pray to God that SCOTUS decides to hear this case and I believe they will. After all, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals directly quoted the Heller decision in rendering their verdict. Since they obviously misapplied a SCOTUS decision, SCOTUS will have to correct this or the Heller decision means nothing!

  9. I doubt cert. will be granted since Kennedy may be around a year or so.

    But I suppose it’s best to have a steady stream of 2A cases in the pipeline for when the balance of the Court changes in our favor…

    • “If” the balance changes in our favor. The second one isn’t replaced yet and although it is very unlikely still, the Republicans could lose the senate in the next midterms – it isn’t inconceivable that Trump might test out his fifth avenue shooting theory or worse. Or with heroic medical intervention all of the justices could hold on to the next presidential inauguration. Oh and even with a second replacement the court could dilly dally until another conservative died first. One could go hunting with Cheney or something.

  10. According to the Fourth Circuit, it was “compelled by Heller to recognize that those weapons and magazines are not constitutionally protected …”

    And according to U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Fourth Circuit ABSOLUTELY WAS compelled to recognize and extend Constitutional protection to firearms that have

    “… some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia …”

    as well as

    “weapon[s that are] part of the ordinary military equipment, or that … could contribute to the common defense”.

    AR-15 platform rifles and 30-round magazines are de-facto firearms that a well regulated militia would use for the common defense.

    The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals knows these facts and ruled against them anyway. I see that as providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and therefore treason. When will the U.S. Government prosecute those justices of the U.S. Fourth Circuit accordingly?

  11. I really think in order to stop this madness, anytime a judge or court or politician doesn’t honor the law/constitution there should be a recall started. That would get their attention real quick. But, unfortunately, there are just not enough people who care or would take the time to do this… it would be quite busy for quite a while…

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/judges/judges-of-the-court
    http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/removal_of_judges.cfm?state

    • This madness will not stop unless police, prosecutors, judges, politicians, and bureaucrats who violate the law/constitution pay significant PERSONAL penalties.

      Fedzilla should liberally prosecute under 18 U.S. Code, Section 242 “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

      Baring that, We The People will eventually have to take action.

    • Federal court judges are appointed for life, and are not subject to “recall.” They may be impeached for high crimes (i.e., committing felonies), but issuing a “wrong” decision (for which her or she has an absolute immunity) is not an impeachable offense. So what you suggest just isn’t going to happen.

      • I believe they can be censured. And making a ‘WRONG’ decision may not be an impeachable offense, but choosing to make a biased decision (instead of recusing themselves) where they’ve already been anti-gun before becoming a SCROTUM, is.

      • “Article III federal judges” (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve “during good behavior” (often paraphrased as appointed “for life”). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.[1]

        Since the impeachment process requires a trial by the United States Senate, and since the constitutional provision concerning federal judges’ tenure cannot be changed without the ratifications of three-fourths of the states, federal judges have perhaps the best job security available in the United States. Moreover, the Constitution forbids Congress to diminish a federal judge’s salary. Twentieth-century experience suggests that Congress is generally unwilling to take time out of its busy schedule to impeach and try a federal judge until, after criminal conviction, he or she is already in prison and still drawing a salary, which cannot otherwise be taken away (see Nixon v. United States, a key Supreme Court case about Congress’s discretion in impeaching and trying federal judges).

        so essentially we would have to start issuing recalls on our represenatives in order to start the process. Make it known that if they don’t help us they lose their jobs… they’ll sacrifice the judges in a heartbeat to save their own arses.

  12. If the “Sporting Purposes” [FU, spit] include execution of your will under the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence [AND IT MOST CERTAINLY FING DOES] then you’ll need full-auto weaponry, mortars, hand grenades, etc., etc.

    Some POS gun-grabbing and (D) bags will tell you that it doesn’t. BUT WHAT WOULD THEY TELL YOU IF IT DID?

    F THE BLACK ROBED BANDITS. If the question will be taken up by SCOTUS without an immediate rebuke of the lower court, then SCOTUS HAS ALREADY FAILED IN IT’S DUTY TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.

    If they can’t do that, they need to pack their sh_t and go home.

  13. Hope this case gets heard and the plaintiffs prevail. I also hope we can get some attorneys who stop shooting us in the foot (pun intended) with the way they phrase things.

    Ex. from cert. petition above:
    “What arms are protected by the core right of the Second Amendment – the right of law-abiding citizens to keep arms in common use for self-defense in the home.”

    Great line for this case, but horrible for any 2A carry case, since that is exactly the argument that the government makes in those cases: that the 2A’s “core lawful purpose” is self-defense *in the home,* and as such, carrying in public is not protected by 2A.

    Can’t we all get on the same page with that one? 2A protects armed self-defense. Period.

    Home, car, sidewalk, beach, trail, etc. is immaterial if you have a lawful right to be present.

    • Heller would never have gotten Kennedy without the language that restricted its scope. Heller was what allowed citizens in multiple states to OWN handguns, which was a lot better than the previous laws.

      Would we be better off without it? I don’t see how we could be. It’s like refusing to take a base hit because you really want that home run.

  14. I believe that SCOTUS will remain out of the Second Amendment business for the foreseeable future, Kennedy or no Kennedy.

    It will require both Kennedy and RBG to be replaced by 2A stalwarts before SCOTUS can muster the cojones to fully embrace 2A. And a Justice named Thomas will lead them, with Alito covering his six.

    • Everyone’s focuses on RBG, but it’s Breyer’s “living constitution” doctrine that is the most poisonous part.

      Breyer leads the intellectual way with their legislating from the bench.

      I wouldn’t be sad if someone dropped a banana peel with momentous consequences and Breyer was involved.

      • Marco,

        The only reason that so many people focus on Ginsburg is because she is probably the most likely to expire of old age before any other Progressive Justice.

        • People “think” that, because she’s old, but in truth, RBG is probably in better physical shape than most readers of this blog! Google it.

    • I think Gorsuch is a better hope for the 2A than Alito. It’s arguable though.

      My opinion comes from Gorsuch and Thomas having an identical voting record during the time Gorsuch has been on the bench. Alito didn’t. Gorsuch and Thomas joined in dissenting from the Peruta cert denial. Alito didn’t.

      I really do hope that Gorsuch is more in the mold of Thomas than Scalia, and my hope seems likely to be true. Thomas is more judicially conservative than Scalia was.

  15. SCOTUS Will refuse to hear this one as well. Letting the current ban stand.

    The majority of justices on the Supreme Court are is anti-gun an nancy pelosi.

    The only way I see the Supreme Court taking a gun case is if the law was written that all gun owners must turn in all of their guns or face execution without trial. Because even forced confiscation would be considered constitutional as far Supreme Court stands right now.

  16. Based on the last case they refused to take (Peruta?) I don’t see any reason they would take this.

    Thanks to the liberals (and yes, in part to conservatives AND gerrymandering), guns have become more partisan than ever. I think the status quo will remain (and it sucks in some states) as long as the court doesn’t heavily sway one way or another through appointments.

    • I think the Court is more likely to take this case than any case like Peruta. This case is what I’ll call a “keep” case. Peruta is what I’ll call a “bear” case.

      Heller was about whether or not there is a right to keep handguns in the home. It wasn’t even about any restrictions on that right. It was about whether or not that right existed at all.

      Peruta was about whether or not there is a right to bear arms outside of the home. It also was’t even about any restrictions on that right. It was about whether or not that right existed at all.

      This case is about whether or not there is a right to keep MSR’s and normal magazines in the home. If the SC overturned the Maryland statute, it would barely be an expansion of the very specific right upheld in Heller. That’s why I think this case is more likely to be granted cert than a “bear” case. There are other more esoteric reasons, but those reasons wouldn’t matter if this case would greatly expand 2A rights.

      All that said, I don’t think there is a big chance this case will be granted cert. Just bigger than the 0% chance that any “bear” case has under the current court’s composition. Hooray?

      • I’d like to think you’re right but I fear that the political realities have rendered the court immobile on the issue.

        • I am right. The chance is greater than 0%. It could even be as high as a whole 1%.

  17. Responding to Hannibal’s comment got me thinking on what a terrible decision the 4th Circuit made in this case. (The “other more esoteric reasons” part of my response).

    Reading Heller, MSR’s and greater than 10 round mags are clearly protected by the 2A. A ban on MSR’s and standard capacity mags is not the same as a ban of all handguns. A blanket ban on rifles would be equivalent, so the Maryland statute isn’t necessarily unconstitutional like a ban on owning handguns or tasers has been ruled to be.

    A state could almost certainly ban Acme Hypothetical Brand handguns because they have been shown explode in the hand of shooters with frighteningly regular frequency. Owning handguns would still be constitutionally protected, but the government’s public safety interest in preventing people from being maimed by defective products would be a significant enough interest, and banning only AHB handguns would be a tight enough fit or even the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

    A court could make the argument that since the Maryland ban isn’t a total ban on rifles in the home, or even semi-auto rifles, it is not a total ban. Therefore it should be subject to some level of scrutiny to determine it’s constitutionality. Inevitably, the court would go through 1A law and find ample support for subjecting the law to intermediate scrutiny. Then, inevitably again, they would find that the government interest is appropriately fitted to the means, and the law is constitutional.

    This is basically the reasoning of every other court that has upheld a gun control law. Also, every other court did it before the 4th Circuit made their decision, so it’s not like they didn’t know about this reasoning.

    Their reasoning is not my reading of the law, but it’s not the out there opinion that the 4th Circuit decided to go with. Instead, they just made up the “it’s similar to something the military uses, so it isn’t protected at all” test. And their level of reasoning would mean that all magazine fed semi-auto handguns could be banned because they aren’t even protected at all under the 2A. That is the exact opposite of the ruling in Heller. It couldn’t be more opposite. Their decision couldn’t be any more idiotic.

  18. … because they are “ ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’ and ‘most useful in military service.’

    Don’t all guns shoot bullets?

  19. It’s silly to go so far in the weeds into a Second Amendment debate. It’s obvious what it says, and it’s obvious that it is for the purpose of protecting the people from their government. Pose Comitatus is supposed to keep the government from operating in a military fashion within our borders with automatic weapons. So the police are NOT allowed to have military hardware, but the individual citizen is GUARANTEED that right. When you have both Pose Comitatus AND the Second Amendment enshrined in the Constitution, the purpose is clear. This isn’t up for debate. We have only supporters and denouncers of the Second Amendment. The people who say: “I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, but……” are people who want to repeal the Second Amendment. There are no buts in this debate. You either believe that all weapons should be protected all the time or you fail to see why it is important to have protections against one’s own government.

    So instead I will ask why there are no checks and balances on a judiciary that refuses to perform its only concrete task: defend the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

    • Pose Comitatus – Not in the Constitution.

      “So instead I will ask why there are no checks and balances on a judiciary that refuses to perform its only concrete task: defend the Constitutional rights of American citizens.” – Given that the judiciary has other tasks that are spelled out in the Constitution, I don’t know what you mean by “only concrete task.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *