HomeDirectorySubmit NewsSubscriptionsAbout UsAdvertiseRecent Posts

 
People like this. Be the first of your friends.

Mrs. Obama Reminding Us 2A Rights are One Liberal SCOTUS Judge Away from Destruction

Monday, October 31st, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Justice Stevens & Mrs. Obama Reminding Us our 2A Rights are One Liberal SCOTUS Judge Away from Destruction

National Rifle Association

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- In case any reader of our weekly Grassroots Alert has not decided how to vote in the 2012 presidential election, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and First Lady Michelle Obama have volunteered to help him make up his mind.

Recently, Time magazine asked Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens’ response: “I would make all my dissents into majority opinions.” Fair enough, since he’s entitled to think he is right, even when a majority of his former colleagues and a larger majority of the American citizenry disagree.

But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Referring to the Court’s decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added “The court got that quite wrong.”

In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that “there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn’t mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said “while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense.”

We have earlier noted the comment of another of the four justices who dissented from the majority’s Heller and McDonald opinions, Stephen Breyer, to the effect that District of Columbia residents who don’t like the city’s onerous gun laws should go to Maryland. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another of the Heller and McDonald dissenters, has publicly indicated her hope that a “future, wiser court” will reconsider the Heller decision.

Of course, Justice Stevens and another of the four dissenting justices in Heller, Justice David Souter, have since retired and been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the majority’s decision in McDonald, and Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the Court in August 2010 and who had a clear anti-gun record during her service in the Clinton White house.

Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated to the Court by President Barack Obama, of course. And not long ago, during a pre-2012 campaign event, First Lady Michelle Obama asked some of the president’s most ardent supporters to remember the Court’s two newest justices when they go into the voting booth next year. In the upcoming election, she said, “we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come . . . let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices . . . let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

Obama supporters will not forget, and neither should supporters of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s margin of safety on the Court remains intact by merely one vote. Given the likelihood of at least one retirement from the Court during the next presidential term, the future of the amendment could easily hinge on Election Day 2012

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

Tags: , , , , ,
 Email   Print     
 
People like this. Be the first of your friends.

D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago Need Supreme Court Clarification

Monday, August 22nd, 2011 at 12:15 PM

D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago Need Supreme Court Clarification
By John Kullman, FirearmsTruth.com

Is it legal for me to clean my guns on my open front porch or in a detached garage?

Is it legal for me to clean my guns on my open front porch or in a detached garage?

FirearmsTruth.com

FirearmsTruth.com

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were decided in favor of gun rights three and two years ago respectively.

Those of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment Rights were jubilant that finally the Supreme Court cleared up the issue in our favor. But as FirearmsTruth reported back then, not all issues were clearly defined by The Court.

Some jurisdictions, like the city of Chicago, disregarded the spirit of the McDonald holding and put as many bureaucratic obstacles against gun ownership as they could. Since Heller was decided three years ago, there have been over 400 legal challenges to constitutionally protected firearms possession. Most of these lower court rulings have been in favor of gun control.

Heller and McDonald make clear that a law abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm for home self-protection. But does this right extend beyond the inside of the home, and if so, how far?

For example, is it legal for me to clean my handgun on my open front porch or in a detached garage? If I am traveling to a shooting range by car how must my firearm be secured? Can it be loaded? What about travel by foot?

Lower federal and state courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of local or state restrictions.

Maryland’s highest state court was quite blunt in one of its decisions in favor of gun control: “If the Supreme Court … means its holdings to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

In the Maryland case, Charles Williams Jr. was convicted for transporting a firearm in public without a permit. He put the gun in a bag before traveling from his girlfriend’s house to his own. William’s attorney, Stephan Halbrook, argues that the Maryland law requiring a travel permit is unconstitutional because “basically ordinary people can’t get one.”

I want to know how you are supposed to get your firearm home from the store in Maryland. Do the police deliver and how much should you tip them?

Some of the restrictive ruling by lower courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully The Court will hear one or more of these and give clear guidelines on how restrictive gun control laws can be when it comes to the 2nd Amendment outside the home.

About John Kullman:
John Kullman holds a jurist doctorate from Thomas Cooley Law School, and a dual bachelor degree in English and Speech, as well as a minor in History from Central Michigan University. He previously was employed with Haliburton and Long & Wetzel. He is the managing editor of Firearmstruth.com, and is avid guns right advocate.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
 Email   Print     
  1. Login with Facebook:
    Log In
    Powered by Sociable!
  2. Facebook Activity