Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Help, my scotus is infected.

..... failed to protect

SCOTUS Passes on Chance to Set 2A Ruling Right

“Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.” Justice Clarence Thomas
Not exactly profiles in courage, but the Supreme Court declined to review two lower court rulings upholding San Francisco's draconian gun control laws. The Associated Press reports, "The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks.

A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has 'no sporting purpose' and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets." Of course, in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a requirement about locking down a firearm in the home, saying the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

So by declining to hear this case, the justices are allowing a patchwork of wrong interpretations of its ruling to stand. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it." Furthermore, they're passing on an opportunity to clarify the most important point of all: The Second Amendment is not "for sporting purposes." The ban on hollow-point ammunition is beyond asinine, but the justices can't be bothered to fire anything but blanks.

This post was in my queue when life so rudely interrupted on June 8.  It seemed important.  Now it seems like blah-blah-blah.  What else is new?  Sigh.


Anonymous said...

If you want to make a libs head explode, let him (or her) make the case for abortion and gun control and then swap the arguments.

Murphy(AZ) said...

I will carry or not carry a weapon, as my heart and intelligence dictates. I will keep a weapon in my home, ready to be used at a moment's notice, as common sense directs me, and I will not be swayed by the clabber-headed musings of ancient and probably senile justices who can barely remain awake through a day's presentations before the once learned bench.

Since the court can't seem to rationally decide, point to point, how they will sway or what words mean, then it falls to the Citizen to choose the course he or she will take, knowing full well that they may be wagering all they are and all they own that even the right choice will be wrong, and they will fall beneath the weight of an oppressive and confused government.

Murphy(AZ) said...

And, by the way, welcome back! We missed you!

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Thank you. I missed me too.

DougM said...

Yeah, the "sporting purposes" argument should not have been allowed.
However, SCOTUS shouldn't be put in the position to determine what is a "stupid law." That's a legislative issue (political). Arguably, this law's restriction doesn't actually negate the Second Amendment, it's merely stupid.
The fix is to elect unstupid people to repeal it.
(Yeah, I knowww …)

Anonymous said...

I see the mark of the real Real King of France and Sweden. Welcome back!

On your topic - regardless of the militia reference in the first clause, what part of
"...,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult?

Regardless of the alleged purpose - militia - that the Left loves to invoke, the People are us, militia or not; arms are guns, pikes, machetes, big rocks or anything else we choose to defend our lives and property with, and the real closer is:

Shall not be infringed.
Infringed - If I must ask for any kind of government permission, whether submit to a government background check, fill out a government form, pay a license fee, need a government permit, or have certain guns proscribed by the government, then my right to life, liberty and property as a free citizen of this country and a human being are being infringed.
If I were to abuse those rights while using a weapon to violate others' rights, then the full weight of the government and the retribution of the others should rightfully land hard on me.
Until then I should be left alone and the terms "reasonable", "common sense", "sensible" are all mealy mouth weasel words that have no application in this instance.

Shall - we oldsters not "educated" in PC schools know that there is a difference between "will not" and "shall not". "Will not" means more than likely not, but it could happen, whereas "shall not" is an imperative that means absolutely not, hell no, no way.

Oh Lord, give us back our Constitution and smite the usurpers, please.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

drew458 said...

Are there no real hunters left amongst us? Are there no men remaining who actually understand how bullets work?

I am perfectly serious. "A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has 'no sporting purpose' and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets." is a total load of hogwash. Ammunition that expands on impact is expressly FOR sporting purposes, whether that expansion is done at a deeper point by soft point bullets or at a more shallow point by hollow point or piston tipped bullets.

The whole idea is to shoot a hole through your quarry considerably larger than the bullet itself, for rapid exsanguination. In that same process, the impact shock of being struck by a bullet has a slight stunning effect, and the initial expansion of the bullet in the quarry's tissues creates a genie-bottle shaped cavity called the wounding channel. At first this is a rather large displacement, destroying organs nerves and blood vessels, but the elastic nature of animal tissue snaps back in a couple milliseconds, leaving a smaller wound cavity of similar shape. This is a devastating blow to the animal and can create an instant kill. If not, then the ragged tearing of the shock inflated/deflated flesh will bleed profusely, and with the aid of the oversize bullet hole the animal will quickly die from blood loss. Gory? Yes, but this is how bullets work, and this is the ethical concept. Blast them to hell, and they die quickly and cleanly.

Non-expanding bullets create only a tiny wound channel, and the military kind of non-expanding bullet, commonly known as a Full Metal Jacket, tumble through the target quarry. They are far less effective when used for sporting purposes. Oh, sure, they kill people real well. People are about the worst animals out there, puny as all get out. Which is why the Army issues our troops a rifle that uses a squirrel rifle cartridge.

Here: take an hour and educate yourself. And never again listen in silence as some politician feeds you that "no sporting purposes" BS. Those words are PROOF they don't know bullets from "that front part that goes up".

PS - military surplus FMJ ammo is just fine for target shooting, which is a sporting purpose as well. So their argument can't be used to push a ban on FMJ stuff either.

PPS - let's go back to science class. All bullets, even solid iron ones, are going to expand or deform on impact, although it may be very hard to tell. You can't escape physics.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.