Supreme Court Again Ducks Second Amendment by Refusing to Hear Gun Cases
When it comes to the Second Amendment, their hands are on the other side. Why? |
That was not the only case the court turned away.
“Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public,” SCOTUS Blog explained. “In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place.”
The denials came with no comments from the justices. One prominent oath-breaking gun-grabber in particular was happy to provide one which the media was happy to repeat.
“It ought to be a lesson to all states, and I would hope that they would look at the 4th Circuit’s decision and the tragic events around the country and come to the conclusion that this is a common-sense law,” Maryland’s Democrat Attorney General Brian Frosh crowed. And that decision in a nutshell?
“[W]e have not power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Bill Clinton nominee and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert King wrote.
Weapons of war are precisely what “We the People” are entitled to have. That’s why the militia was deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” by the Founders. And King wouldn’t have needed to extend anything. U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 already observed a weapon would have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
As for the Florida case, falling back on the manner of bearing arms (openly vs. concealed) as an excuse to tolerate infringements flies in the face of both historical customs as well as the “shall not be infringed” proscription. That seems to be a pretty clear mandate to everyone except to those who would deny rights to their countrymen under color of authority.
The absence of further High Court action since 2010 and the lack of any explanation for declining to hear these cases mean we can only speculate on the reasons. Are judges who favor easing up on infringements waiting for a retirement or two from their ranks before they’ll deem it safe to move forward, or does this mean the majority owes its first and foremost loyalties to an establishment that thinks this business of an armed populace has gone far enough?
In either case, infringements with the force of law behind them are being allowed to continue now, and as Dr. King observed, a right delayed is a right denied.
Earlier recent examples of SCOTUS 2A avoidance:
------------------
David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns and writes for other orgaizations including Oath Keepers.
Tags: David Codrea, Oath Keepers, Supreme Court, Second Amendment, refuses, to hear gun cases To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home