“The issue these days isn’t that the Supreme Court affirmed Second Amendment principles in District of Columbia v. Heller andMcDonald v. Chicago, but that four of nine justices dissented. Similarly, the Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks didn’t advance — but 54 senators voted for it. If those opposing the civil right of self-defense elect just a few more representatives and senators, or replace one more Supreme Court justice, the Second Amendment’s “official” interpretation could drastically change….” – Howard Nemerov in Essential Liberty: They Came for Your Guns [via pjmedia.com] (h/t instapundit.com)
Click here to start a discussion or ask a question at TTAG’s Free Fire Zone
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Thomas Jefferson after Marbury v. Madison
Nice quote!
Thank you;
The 10th Amendment, in its preservation of civil sovereignty, as to remain with the peoples of the States invdividualy, was therefore codified.
Apt quote.
only a human can take something as simple to understand as the 2nd Amendment and turn it into something that needs the overpaid pompous black suits on the Supreme Court to interpret it, for us little people.
A wise man said that you cannot expect the Federal government to keep its own powers in check.
And this is what I have been saying all along. The Second Amendment guarantees rights until it doesn’t. If the Supreme Court were to rule against 2A at some point in the future, gun owners are well and truly screwed. Absent some sort of action on Congress’ part (which is not too likely), we could very quickly arrive at gun confiscation regime in the model of England or Australia. That, it truly the scariest scenario as it would likely rip the country apart as groups of people choose to resist. I pray we never come to that, but being one justice away from that scenario is frightening.
This is why, from the standpoint of gun rights, that we must keep electing presidents who are supporters of gun rights, not opponents. The man or woman in the White House when the SC make-up changes will determine what happens.
I wish more of the nation thought the same way that you do, sir.
Unfortunately, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama, etc. keep getting re-elected in this nation. That is truly an unfortunate state of affairs.
Jim,
An England or Australia model of confiscation would result in heavy resistance and would rip the country apart here in the US, that is simple fact. Most of us understand the Second Amendment and simply don’t need a Supreme Court to tell us what it means, or any other body for that mater. Unfortunately a lot of America is stumbling along with blinders on and simply doesn’t care or at the best is hoping it all goes to crap on someones else’s time, we are not going to make it I fear.
If the political option ever becomes hopeless there are only two options left:
Capitulation or rebellion.
So we should do everything in our power to make sure we’re not left with just those two choices. The political battle goes on and we are winning everywhere except in some of the fascist states in the North.
The tyrants in black robes; almost every decision by these fallible, corrupt able and imperfect human beings since the packing of the courts by Roosevelt has been to increase the power of government at the expense of our individual liberties.
The tyrants in black robes; almost every decision by these fallible, corrupt able and imperfect human beings since the packing of the courts by Roosevelt has been to increase the power of government at the expense of our individual liberties.
Hopefully, that day never comes, but if it does, then my hope is that those who cry Molon Labe now do not bow down to tyrants and back up their words with action. I truly hope it never gets that far.
Bingo. So few people realize just how tenuous our grasp is on our rights. A couple votes here, a new justice there and suddenly we’re in the fast lane to tyranny.
Once they get hold, there’s no turning back.
“…there’s no turning back.”
Well, not without blood shed.
I don’t advocate violence, but the Tree of Liberty does need the occasional refreshing and I think the instructions were to do so with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants. I say we start with the Tyrants.
Those decisions would be 9-0 if the judges followed the constitution instead of their personal feelings we wouldn’t have much to worry about. One more liberal president and it’s over. They will get their 5-4 court and run something up as soon as possible.
Then the real legislation will come out with the backing of the Court.
Don’t vote libtard (democrat) EVER again. Period.
Your days are numbered. I’ve been saying it for a long time. If the balance on the Supreme Court doesn’t change during Obama’s second term, it’s sure to under the next Democratic president or the one after that. The internal strife within the Republican party, the Tea Party kookiness, and all the rest, has pretty much assured this.
Not only will the make up of the Supreme Court change, but in the next off-cycle election many of those pro-gun politicians will be voted out. Bloomberg’s working on that. And the continued work on the part of the Newtown families as well as Administration’s efforts to not let the background check debate die will have its impact on those elections too.
No, you guys are finished. Enjoy it while you can.
Comments are closed.