Supremes Slap Down Second Amendmenters Big Time

[BobBalouski]

California law commands that a 10 day "cooling off period" applies to every gun purchase in that state, even if the purchaser already owns other guns. One multi-gun owner sued the state, arguing those who already possess weapons and have already been cleared by the government to own guns, shouldn't have to wait that 10 day period.

The 9th Circuit Court denied that individual's argument, ruling California's law a "reasonable safety precaution." So, the suing gun owner took his case all the way to the Supremes...

...who today, with ONLY Justice Thomas dissenting, refused to even hear the gun owner's case.

In dissent, Thomas said the lower court's ruling reflects the "general failure to afford the 2nd Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right." And "as evidence by our continued inaction in this area, the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."

Funny that just yesterday I kept reading numerous postings on the GB about how the Supremes favor NOT INFRINGING on keeping and bearing, how they're so pro-Amendment II, how the 2nd isn't going anywhere, that there's no chance anti-2nd Amendmenters will ever be successful...

...of course, these are the same types of people who, after being run over by a bus, ask: Where the heck did that thing come from?

Me?

I think this 8-1 decision is the perfect opportunity for anti-2nd Amendmenters to take advantage of the Parkland shooting-inspired March For Our Lives political movement to officially launch a NATIONAL campaign to propose, pass and ratify a 28th Amendment that repeals the inalienable liberty to keep and bear arms the 2nd commands.

The time is NOW to repeal Amendment II. What say you, my lemmings?

Supreme Court leaves in place California's 10-day wait for gun buyers, rejects 2nd Amendment challenge
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-20180220-story.html

 

[HisArpy]

First of all, it wasn't a smack down. It was a denial of certiorari (means we don't want to hear it). Secondly, Thomas' dissent says something about how the SupCt hasn't been hearing gun cases. Third, it wasn't about the 10-day waiting period, at most it was about retaining the 10-day waiting period as a "cooling off period" for those who ALREADY own guns. Finally, the appeal to the SupCt was about how the 9th circuit once again violated judicial procedures rather than obey the mandates they were supposed to follow.

Our courts and our government have ceased to listen to the complaints of the people.

 

[mairenn]

California law commands that a 10 day "cooling off period" applies to every gun purchase in that state, even if the purchaser already owns other guns. One multi-gun owner sued the state, arguing those who already possess weapons and have already been cleared by the government to own guns, shouldn't have to wait that 10 day period.

The 9th Circuit Court denied that individual's argument, ruling California's law a "reasonable safety precaution." So, the suing gun owner took his case all the way to the Supremes...

...who today, with ONLY Justice Thomas dissenting, refused to even hear the gun owner's case.



Funny that just yesterday I kept reading numerous postings on the GB about how the Supremes favor NOT INFRINGING on keeping and bearing, how they're so pro-Amendment II, how the 2nd isn't going anywhere, that there's no chance anti-2nd Amendmenters will ever be successful...

...of course, these are the same types of people who, after being run over by a bus, ask: Where the heck did that thing come from?

Me?

I think this 8-1 decision is the perfect opportunity for anti-2nd Amendmenters to take advantage of the Parkland shooting-inspired March For Our Lives political movement to officially launch a NATIONAL campaign to propose, pass and ratify a 28th Amendment that repeals the inalienable liberty to keep and bear arms the 2nd commands.

The time is NOW to repeal Amendment II. What say you, my lemmings?

Supreme Court leaves in place California's 10-day wait for gun buyers, rejects 2nd Amendment challenge
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-20180220-story.html

this is just the 9th and they are wrong in so many things already. get rid of the 2nd? you will never get the 2/3 necessary of the states. I would not want it changed in any case, just enforce the already 5000+ firearms laws already in federal law books.

 

[coachdb18]

The United States government is never to be trusted with a promise. Ask any Indian now living on a reservation how those original treaties worked out for them. We have a Bill of Rights, which was nothing more than a government promise not to attempt infringement of rights that the government didn't have the right to give or take in the first place, but a promise nonetheless that it would never interfere with these already innate rights. Well, looks like we know where the term Indian giver comes from, now don't we!

 

[BobBalouski]

Our courts and our government have ceased to listen to the complaints of the people.

Can't say that I blame them a bit: all complaints are most certainly not created equal...

...and the entire country seems to have turned into one gigantic WHINE.

 

[BobBalouski]

The United States government is never to be trusted with a promise. Ask any Indian now living on a reservation how those original treaties worked out for them. We have a Bill of Rights, which was nothing more than a government promise not to attempt infringement of rights that the government didn't have the right to give or take in the first place, but a promise nonetheless that it would never interfere with these already innate rights. Well, looks like we know where the term Indian giver comes from, now don't we!

No, the "Bill of Rights" is not "a government promise": it is a Law of the Land COMMAND specifically/purposely/intentionally ONLY TO government. It constitutionally ORDERS government that it is as EQUALLY subservient to the Constitution as every other entity and individual within its jurisdiction is.

America's founders & framers warned about the perpetual nature of ALL government, that if let unchecked and unbalanced by a virtuous people, it would ALWAYS become the Leviathan all government is naturally destined to become.

It's virtually impossible today to logically provide ANY example of American life its government doesn't CONTROL/REGULATE - even when the Constitution directly COMMANDS it not to...

...thus, in America today, government has achieved full Leviathan DEEP STATE status over the Constitution itself.

The American republic as constituted is already lost; what's happening today is simply fate working-out whether enough patriots are left to try to at least salvage the best of its revolutionary foundation so those glorious political principles may live on, somehow.

 

[coachdb18]

No, the "Bill of Rights" is not "a government promise": it is a Law of the Land COMMAND specifically/purposely/intentionally ONLY TO government. It constitutionally ORDERS government that it is as EQUALLY subservient to the Constitution as every other entity and individual within its jurisdiction is.

America's founders & framers warned about the perpetual nature of ALL government, that if let unchecked and unbalanced by a virtuous people, it would ALWAYS become the Leviathan all government is naturally destined to become.

It's virtually impossible today to logically provide ANY example of American life its government doesn't CONTROL/REGULATE - even when the Constitution directly COMMANDS it not to...

...thus, in America today, government has achieved full Leviathan DEEP STATE status over the Constitution itself.

The American republic as constituted is already lost; what's happening today is simply fate working-out whether enough patriots are left to try to at least salvage the best of its revolutionary foundation so those glorious political principles may live on, somehow.

You're right, but you also know it was fought over at the original convention, for the very reasons I've stated. Many of the signers objected to including it for the very fact they didn't want to subject something they considered to be Natural Law, to the lower status of man's law. They knew full well that some asshole, someday, would take putting the Bill of Rights in the Constitution would one day mean a challenge to repeal it. We're there with even more speed and dogged determination to kill our new nation than anyone dreamed possible. The revolutionary fire is slowly dying, and the demonic attraction offered by Socialism is trying to gain a foothold. Let us all hope we don't go there without a fight.

 

[St_mAnn]

You're right, but you also know it was fought over at the original convention, for the very reasons I've stated. Many of the signers objected to including it for the very fact they didn't want to subject something they considered to be Natural Law, to the lower status of man's law. They knew full well that some asshole, someday, would take putting the Bill of Rights in the Constitution would one day mean a challenge to repeal it. We're there with even more speed and dogged determination to kill our new nation than anyone dreamed possible. The revolutionary fire is slowly dying, and the demonic attraction offered by Socialism is trying to gain a foothold. Let us all hope we don't go there without a fight.

You couldn't fight your way out of a pastry.

 

[lovecraft68]

Good for them for upholding the rule.

Too bad Florida seems to think they're above the gun laws most states enforce. They're literally cash and carry down there.

This recent shooting should have the feds foot on their throat and if the NRA had a brain in their head they'd be calling out the lack of common sense laws as well.

Instead this is another "all states' and 'all gun owners' witch hunt.

 

[BobBalouski]

You're right...

Such excellent expert analysis...

...and then you just had to naturally revert to your native Weekly Reader level.

Always stop before the "but", bozo - ALWAYS.