Tuesday, June 9, 2015

So much for trusting the black-robed domestic enemies of the Constitution.

New doubts on Second Amendment rights
U.S. Supreme Court lets stand S.F.’s gun storage law, bullet ban
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
We warned in Heller that “[a] constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” 554 U. S., at 634. The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco’s law burdened the core component of the Second Amendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the questionable nature of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, I would have granted a writ of certiorari.

11 comments:

PO'd American said...

I am no lawyer, but a writ of certiorari was basically requested by this petitioner "NRA et al;" John Roberts (POS that he is)decided not to hear this case. It is clearly unconstitutional, but what do you expect from one half of the members of the SCOTUS?

This is a clear cut case rationale for "I will not comply....ever."

Stay out of my life, stay out of my house, stay out of my pocket.

unclezip said...

Did you notice that they threw in the "no sporting purposes" piece, just to drive the knife deeper? I guess they don't want us to get the idea that hunting tyrants would be a good idea. Anymore, SCOTUS is irrelevant to me.

Galaxie_Man said...

Hmmm....this does not sound good for us here behind enemy lines in Kommiecticut (CT) and NY. Our joint case is awaiting the decision any day now from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless of what the decision is, either side will appeal to SCOTUS, and of course the states of Kommiecticut and NY will use taxpayers dollars to pay THEIR legal fees. The initial ruling by a federal judge was issued with NO hearings and stated that even though the law "burdened" our Second Amendment rights, it must stand in the interest of "public safety". Of course we all remember that provision in The Constitution, right??? Your God given rights can be suspended if it saves just one life, ignoring how many die in the enforcement of such nonsense.

There is the off-chance that the 2nd Circuit rules in our favor, and then SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal. That would be a HUGE win!!

Regardless of a negative decision, The Armed Civil Disobedience will continue. Let's see how the state reacts......are we all ready for what may come?

Roger said...

The Constitution is easily interpreted by anyone with the ability to read and comprehend. It does't require a lawyer (judge) or politician to interpret it for us.

Thomas is telling us that if we depend on the courts to interpret our rights, we'd better be prepared to lose them.

He's telling us we 'the people' need to stand up and take back our rights.

Anonymous said...

Shall Not Be Infringed......?

What greater infringement could there be at the individuals greatest time of need, except for adding 4 additional locks and containers, during a home invasion?

This is both an INTENTIONAL infringement, and pre-emptive disarmament of the victims that this law creates!

WHAT CONSTITUTION? WHAT BILL OF RIGHTS?

The SCOTUS is now populated by TRAITORS who will commit their treasons by a one vote margin, unless the Marxists within our government can manage to increase the number of MARXISTS on the court, and it will get worse from here.

We do not have to take this because they are dressed in black robes and say so.

They will destroy this country and that is now very clearly, their manifest intent.

Anonymous said...

Where is it in the constitution that it says that SCOTUS can change anything in the constitution?

Do they not know what "shall not be infringed" means?

Paul III said...

We are at war with the government for their constitutional abuses, so any further laws are null and void. I already said that I would kill anyone that enters my castle, and that includes law enforcement. We don't need anyone telling us what is right or wrong, if we follow by example, embezzlement, money laundering, theft and murder(which our law enforcement) are guilty all the time, are alright. All legal. And in their warped thinking, not wrong. People, if you just wake up and realize that we are all as free as we make ourselves. Freedoms have to be taken. You are only as free as you make yourself. I possibly am the freest American on this planet. I follow NO laws that don't fit my "interpretation" of the constitution, and it was written in plain language, not legalese. We don't need it translated for us....

Jimmy the Saint said...

@PO'd American: "Stay out of my life, stay out of my house, stay out of my pocket."


Quoth every statist ever, via Bugs Bunny: "He don't know us very well, do he?" Getting inside your life, house, and pocket is simply what they do. They can no more stop that than most sharks can stop swimming. They have to do it, or they die.

PO'd American said...

Anonymous Jimmy the Saint said...

@PO'd American: "Stay out of my life, stay out of my house, stay out of my pocket."


Quoth every statist ever, via Buggs Bunny: "He don't know us very well, do he?" Getting inside your life, house, and pocket is simply what they do. They can no more stop that than most sharks can stop swimming. They have to do it, or they die.

June 9, 2015 at 1:20 PM

Well here's hoping they all die sooner rather than later!! I should have included the other so-called conservative on the court "Alito" when referring to Roberts as a POS. I know well you can never count on Kennedy and the others (Ginsburg, Kagen, Sotomayor the wise latina woooman, and Brayer [donkey], they are as predictable as taxes. The four conservatives could have easily placed this issue on the docket and strengthen the 2nd amendment if they were true constitutionalists, but what you see is what you get. Thank God they are still making rope.

Anonymous said...

Obama owns the court. NSA has dirt on Roberts at a minimum. Expect nothing from the court. Brace for impact, ready for war.

harp1034 said...

Maybe the five votes needed would not be there at decision time. That would be worse than not doing anything now. Maybe 3 or 4 years from now the votes will be there.