Thursday, February 23, 2017

Heller Gutted


It looks like Neil Gorsuch is going to have his plate full when he finally takes his seat on the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has been busy uprooting the Second Amendment this week, delivering a stunning opinion which essentially overturns the Heller decision without so much as a by your leave to SCOTUS. It involves a case out of Maryland where the state’s Democrats decided to ban “assault rifles” and high-capacity magazines. Apparently the idea of precedent is not something they care to have any truck with, as Charles C.W. Cook explains at National Review.


Pardon my language, but where the hell did the phrase “most useful in military service” come from? As Charles aptly points out, this is completely new ground which was summoned up out of whole cloth by the majority in this decision. And what does that even mean?

Will the Supreme Court actually entertain nonsense like this as some new standard in defiance of all precedent? I can certainly think of four members who might. This is yet another case which demonstrates how important it is to get Neil Gorsuch on the job as quickly and efficiently as possible. This sort of claptrap coming from the lower courts must be kept in check.

Article II of the Constitution gives the United States House of Representatives sole power of impeachment, and assigns the power to try impeachments to the United States Senate.[2]
The United States Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants. One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress' place in upholding the "good behavior" of judges.[4]

There are options, but where the hell is Congress? Because a nation without a rule of law, as has been recently, and manifestly demonstrated in Brazil, and other South American countries, leads to "Star Chamber Justice," where even child beggars are executed as nuisances by roving posses.


Anonymous said...

Wait a minute! Are you saying that "roving posses" (aka "right-wing death squads") are necessarily a bad thing?
I mean, I know "that's not who we are", but considering how that phrase has been co-opted, and how infested we've become, maybe drastic times call for drastic measures…

Phil N. LeBlanc

Chris in NC said...

And every day I feel better and better about my trump vote. I didn't really like or trust him when I pulled the lever for him. I hoped he'd be what he said he was (and he has so far), but I knew what kind of judge hillary would appoint and what kind of president she would be and that's what decided where my vote fell. Thank God he won.

Anonymous said...

Don't you just love it when these renegade Judges just out of the blue create a opinion despite previous decisions of the Courts stare decisis or Founding Documents? Yet they are the very first ones to scream about overturning a previous Court decision, with a moderate, sound decision.


Drew458 said...

Wait one; wasn't there a "military useful" aspect in the Miller decision, back in 1939, the one that banned short barreled shotguns, even though the cavalry had used them in the 19th Century and the Doughboys had something like that in the trenches in WWI? So it might not be whole cloth, but it sure is a rare garment. Miller, of course, is total crap, and needs to be overturned then buried.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

nice catch ... ow for the rest-

drew458 said...

Thanks, but I think I've got it wrong.
I followed the links and read some of it, and this decision seems to be saying that if a weapon is useful by the military, then it ISN'T covered by the Second. "weapons that are most useful in military service,and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment".

1) BS on the whole thing, what part of both "well regulated militia" and "shall not be infringed" don't these commie fux get?


2) Is there a silver lining here, because this decision seems to overturn Miller? Miller denied 2A coverage to certain weapons because they WEREN'T military (the old "militia" argument); this one denies 2A coverage to certain weapons because they ARE military in nature (or at least in looks, which is the same to stupid lefties).

Both decisions can not be correct at the same time ... unless you flush the 2A and ban ALL guns.

PS - the military uses knives, and pistols, and flare guns too. All weapons. So all illegal now, no 2A protection? Or, as it seems, they're basing their judgement on rate of fire, pretending that an AR15 can be fired 300+ times per minute. Or gosh, all you have to do is pull the trigger and it goes bang. Well, so does my .357 revolver (revolvers also having a long military history, duh). With light loads and lots and lots of practice I bet I could yank the trigger 5 times in a second. That's 300 rounds per minute. So is my DA sixgun now "outside" the 2A as well?

This is going straight to SCOTUS. And we really, REALLY need a way to toss activist judges off the bench.

Stu Tarlowe said...

The bottom line for me regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment came from Tench Coxe. When asked "What sort of weapons shall the People keep and bear?", this lesser-known Founding Father and economist replied, "Every terrible implement of the soldier".

Skoonj said...

A lot of people take the first part of the 2nd Amendment take pains to show how we are all part of the “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” miss the point.

Like all amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment affirms individual rights, and doesn’t put us all in the army, or militia. What it says is that the free State WILL have a militia, therefore “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” is how we the people will defend ourselves against the State.

Anonymous said...

Drew458 -- Yes you are correct in noting that Miller had a military-use angle. But that case said that the 2nd Amendment did NOT extend to permitting people to have weapons that were NOT in common military use. There, the Court found (incorrectly) that a sawed-off shotgun was not used by the military, and so having one was not protected by the 2A. In that sense, this new case is bass-ackwards.

Anonymous said...

I've seen those three women in your pic before:
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

The thing about US v. Miller is, and most everybody has gotten it wrong ever since, is that only the gubmint side showed up to argue in front of the Supremes. The Miller side did not, so their side was not heard. Certainly there was ample evidence that sawed off shotguns were previously in military use (Terry's Texas Rangers in the War of Northern Aggression immediately come to mind), but inasmuch as nobody from the Miller side showed up to argue that and other points in the case, the Sup's found for the gubmint position.

Sir H the Comet

poletax said...

I'm sure there are bigger things to work on than passing more laws on inanimate objects.

Unknown said...

See here: What has been seen cannot be unseen...

rickn8or said...

Boots, over at raised an interesting point:

In Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms:

“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, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

>>>The money line: “…even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding….”

Post a Comment

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