Allison Eid : Trump’s Choices For U.S. Supreme Court Justice

By Roger J. Katz, Attoney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli
Introduction To A Consideration Of Possible People Who May Gain A Seat On The U.S. Supreme Court. Allison Eid.

Allison Eid
Allison Eid
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- The mainstream media’s endless, nauseating, servile behavior toward Hillary Clinton won’t go away.

That same media demonizes Donald Trump. Yet, the possibility of a criminal indictment against Clinton gets scant attention. The powers that crush the public into submission actively embrace a Clinton Presidency.

If Hillary Clinton becomes our next President, the Second Amendment will face renewed assault and eventual, inevitable de facto repeal. That isn’t guess. That is fact.

Clinton will be in position to anoint the ninth U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Clinton's nominee will receive a hearing and vote. That, too, is not conjecture. That is fact. Senator Grassley's Judiciary Committee cannot feasibly forestall a confirmation vote indefinitely if Clinton secures the Oval Office.

If Clinton's first nominee to sit on the high Court isn't confirmed, her second, or third choice likely will be. Once confirmed to a seat on the high Court, the liberal-wing of the Court will have secured its majority: five to four. Any case remotely affecting the Second Amendment that comes before the Court on appeal will almost certainly be taken up. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will come under renewed assault.

The liberal-wing majority's decision will whittle away at the Heller and McDonald case holdings. The liberal-wing majority may overturn the holdings of those two seminal cases outright.

Clinton hasn’t released a list of prospective U.S. Supreme Court candidates, but Trump has. We guess Clinton is content with Merrick Garland—a Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit who has openly attacked the Second Amendment in two decisions. Clinton will do nothing to risk Garland’s candidacy. Judge Garland is Obama's darling. Clinton would hardly wish to anger Obama as the mainstream news sources have reported, on the day of the posting of this article, June 10, 2016, Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Clinton knows that Garland exhibits the same enmity toward the Second Amendment as she does, and as Obama does. That is a necessary condition for nomination, notwithstanding that neither Obama nor Clinton would say so publicly.

We know Trump will support the Second Amendment. That isn't bombast. Trump has released a list of candidates. Let’s consider those candidates’ records.

Allison Eid

We begin with Allison Eid, a Colorado State Supreme Court Justice, who issued the opinion in Regents of the Univ. of Colo. vs. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC., 2012 CO 17; 271 P.3d 496; 2012 Colo. LEXIS 114; 2012 WL 691538.

Facts Of The Case

The Plaintiff, a student group seeking to carry concealed firearms on campus, sued the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents. The Plaintiff alleged the Board’s weapons policy violates the Colorado Concealed Carry Act (“CCA)  and Article 2, Section 13 of the State Constitution’s right to bear arms. The Board of Regent’s Weapons Control Policy prohibits carrying of firearms on campus except for certified law enforcement personnel. Failure to abide by the policy leads to expulsion.

The Complaint alleges that three students sought to carry firearms “when traveling to, from, through, or on the campuses of the University of Colorado for self-defense.” One of the students contacted the Chief of Police at the University, in Denver. He sought permission to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Two other students contacted the Chancellor of the University in Colorado Springs. Each of the students asserted they held a valid concealed-carry permit under State Statute, the CCA. The officials denied the requests, citing the University policy.

The, Defendant, Board of Regents moved to dismiss, arguing the students had failed to state a claim for relief. The lower District Court agreed. The Court argued that the CCA prohibits only “local governments” in Colorado “from adopting or enforcing laws contrary to the CCA.” The Court said “the Board is not a ‘local government’” and, so, had authority to ban firearms on campus. The lower Court also said, oddly, that “the right to bear arms is not a ‘fundamental right.’” The lower Court also said the right can instead be “highly restricted” by the state’s valid exercise of its police power.” The lower Court then dismissed the complaint, and the students appealed the adverse decision to the next level: the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals focused on “the plain language” of the Statute, and on the State Legislature’s “desire for statewide uniform standards” to include—as the Statute says—“all areas of the State.” The Court of Appeals concluded that “all areas of the State” means college campuses too. On the Constitutional issue, the Court of Appeals said the lower District Court applied the wrong standard of review. The Students’ allegations did state a claim for relief. The Court of Appeals thereupon reversed the decision of the lower Court.

The Board of Regents appealed the adverse decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. The high State Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding for the Plaintiff Students.

The State Supreme Court’s Holding And Reasoning

Delivering the opinion of the high State Court, Justice Allison Eid said:

“We hold that the CCA’s comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus.” The Colorado State Supreme Court added, “Because we affirm on statutory grounds, we do not consider the Students’ constitutional claim.”

Consideration of the constitutional claim is unnecessary here.

The high State Court peered closely at the CCA. The Court reasoned that the Colorado General Assembly enacted the CCA because “the General Assembly found that jurisdictions were inconsistent in issuing concealed-carry permits and in identifying ‘areas of the state where it is lawful to carry concealed handguns.’” “The General Assembly found the criteria and procedures for lawfully carrying a concealed handgun ‘should be consistent throughout the state to ensure the consistent implementation of state law.'”

The General Assembly pointed out, clearly, concisely, categorically that it was “‘necessary that the state occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed handguns since the issuance of a concealed handgun permit is based on a person’s constitutional right of self-protection and there is a prevailing state interest in ensuring that no citizen is arbitrarily denied a concealed handgun permit and in ensuring that the laws controlling the use of the permit are consistent throughout the state.”

The Board of Regents claimed, erroneously, “‘that the CCA does not divest it of its authority to adopt and enforce the Policy [because the Board] holds special, constitutional authority to enact policies governing the University of Colorado.”’

The State Supreme Court clarified that local governments—and that includes the Board of Regents—“are expressly prohibited from ‘adopt[ing] or enforce[ing] an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision [of the CCA].’”

In conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court held “that the CCA divested the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus.”

Closing Thoughts On The Positive Implications Of Justice Allison Eid’s Opinion

Colorado State Justice Allison Eid respects the rule of law. She doesn't impose her will on the people of the State. She sees her job as interpreting the law of Colorado as it exists, not as she may happen to prefer–whatever her personal predilections may be. She recognizes that the State Legislature, the General Assembly, has preempted the field of firearms regulation. Colorado's General Assembly has done this, obviously, to ensure that the right to bear arms as embodied in the State Constitution, and, by logical entailment, the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as is a right exercised by Americans throughout the State–a right uniformly exercised, throughout the State–is not subject to curtailment by local authorities who happen to disagree with Americans' ownership and possession of firearms.

What Happens To The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Where States Permit Local Jurisdictions To Impose Their Own Will On The People?

State Justice Allison Eid
State Justice Allison Eid

Several State Legislatures do allow jurisdictions within the State to adopt their own rules, codes, and ordinances regulating the carrying of handguns concealed. This is called “Home Rule.” Relaxation of State preemption invariably weakens the Second Amendment because local jurisdictions, given the opportunity to flex their muscle through the device of “Home Rule,” deny American citizens' right to keep and bear arms. Local jurisdictions do this under the guise of promoting law and order and preventing gun violence even though such rules, codes, and ordinances do nothing to curtail gun violence and do nothing to promote law and order. Actually, such rules, codes, and regulations ensure that criminal gun violence will increase, not decrease.

Local rules, codes, and ordinances that curtail a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend one’s life and well-being serve to undercut the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment. This creates confusion because the public is bombarded with a myriad of conflicting requirements. This also results in the useless expenditure of police administrative resources better utilized in fighting crime.

And this results in the needless expenditure of personal resources. A person, who seeks to exercise his or her natural right of self-defense, under the Second Amendment must spend inordinate amounts of time and money for the privilege of doing so as the sacred right is supplanted by government licensing schemes. Thus favoritism, corruption, bribery, and black market activity begin to germinate and flourish.

Comparison Of Legal Methodologies

Consider State Justice Allison Eid’s methodology in deciding cases. Her methodology follows the methodology employed by Justice Thomas and by the late Justice Scalia. Justice Eid looks at “the plain text” of a Statute. She doesn’t read into a Statute what she likes and discard what she may happen not to like. She doesn’t second-guess the State Legislature.

Compare State Justice Allison Eid’s methodology and jurisprudence to Judge Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Garland decides Second Amendment cases and those cases implicating the Second Amendment by insinuating his personal predilection against the Second Amendment into his decisions. Judge Garland isn’t content in looking at “the plain text” of a Statute if he doesn’t like its meaning.

State Justice Allison Eid, unlike Judge Garland, accepts a Statute as it exists. She sees her job as interpreting the law, not rewriting it.

Which Jurist is likely to preserve the Bill of Rights for the benefit of all Americans as the founders of our Republic intended? Which Jurist is likely to shred the Bill of Rights because it is an “old document” and must be rewritten, consistent with the Constitutions of other nations, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer apparently would like very much to see? Whom would you like to see sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court: State Justice Allison Eid or U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland?

If Donald Trump secures the Office of U.S. President, the Second Amendment will be preserved, even strengthened. We may rest assured of that.

If Hillary Clinton secures the Office of U.S. President, she will do everything in her power–and outside her power–to weaken and eventually destroy the Second Amendment. That is her goal. That is the goal of those both inside and outside this Country who seek to eliminate America's Bill of Rights. She will argue it is the mandate of the American people to rewrite and redefine America's Bill of Rights.

The American people must crush Hillary Clinton's naked ambition for absolute power.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

14
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
SargeMike McAllisterRattlerjakeRichWild Bill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Rich
Guest
Rich

If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarchy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand! In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Guest
Rattlerjake

You are correct. A SCOTUS decision is only an opinion, it can also be overridden by Congress. Our Constitution is being INTERPRETED instead of understood. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that isn’t plain enough for evn the least educated to understand, yet we allow indoctrinated lawyers appointed to SCOTUS to scramble the meaning. Additionally, when a state became a state it “RATIFIED” the Constitution, meaning that it accept the Constitution and agreed to follow it, which they have shown a propensity to ignore. Sadly, I’m pretty tired of women being appointed to so many high offices, considering that they… Read more »

Mike McAllister
Guest
Mike McAllister

So Trump has a war on woman. Guess this blows a big hole in that doesn’t it. Poor liberal SOB’s, just can’t get it right can you!!!

FED UP
Guest
FED UP

What’s with this foreign sh*t. I speak and read and write in English! This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what the Trump people are fed up with! BTW What did Mr. Pedace say, and in what language did he say it in? I often wonder if Swillary the liar/treasonous dbag could end up being a female RFK? If not, I hope she will need to at least add an orange pantsuit to her collection !

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

He just writes in Spanish to annoy us. If he really wanted to participate in a conversation, then he would use English a language that he obviously understands. Don’t take it personally, just skip over it.

Jorge Norberto Pedace
Guest
Jorge Norberto Pedace

EN TODO CASO ESTARÁ LA JUSTICIA,COMO PODER INDEPENDIENTE PARA ABITRAR,SOBRE EL MANTENIMIENTO DE LAS CONQUISTAS POPULARES O NO,Y DEBERÁ SER EL PARLAMENTO TODO LUEGO
EN PRÓXIMAS ELECCIONES,QUIENES DECIDAN.A LO LÓGICO DECIMOS SÍ,A LAS FOBIAS,DIREMOS NO Y
NOS OPONDREMOS.QUIEN QUIERE SER IMPOPULAR Y PERDER VOTOS.MIENTRAS TANTO DEBEMOS QUI
TARNOS DE LA ESPALDA,AQUELLO QUE NO ES BUENO PARA NUESTRO PAÍS Y PARA EL MUNDO

Mike McAllister
Guest
Mike McAllister

So Jorge you can’t type a message in ENGLISH? To bad no one will read your message then.

JeffH
Guest
JeffH

Hey dopey, you always attack someone because they don’t write in English? A smart man would keep his clap trap shut or translate it first before sticking his foot in his mouth. Obviously that’s not you!

Translation:
IN ANY CASE WILL BE JUSTICE , AS INDEPENDENT POWER ABITRAR ON KEEPING THE POPULAR OR ACHIEVEMENTS , AND SHALL THEN BE ALL THE PARLIAMENT
IN upcoming elections, WHO SAY YES DECIDAN.A logical , phobias , TELL NO Y
WE WANT OPONDREMOS.QUIEN unpopularity QUI WE LOSE BOTH VOTOS.MIENTRAS
TARNOS back, NOT THAT WHICH IS GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD

Nospeakadeenglish
Guest
Nospeakadeenglish

Yes people should be attacked for not speaking English. Democrats like Jorge feel entitled and piss all over this country when he could be translating his comments in the spirit of goodwill. Maybe my problem is I am in my fifth decade of life and there was a time when people in this country would not tolerate someone who has the ability to translate and or speak our language over theirs.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

Jeff, we know that Jorge reads English or he could not comment on the articles. If he can read English then he was probably taught to write in English, since those two tend to go together. So if he wants to converse, why doesn’t he write in English? I suspect that either he doesn’t really want conversation or he has an another motive. At any rate, it is just easier to skip to some other commenter that has something thoughtful to say in English. Rather than shutting up, smart people are deciding to push back. We have had enough shutting… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Guest
Rattlerjake

It’s jackazzes like you that insist on accepting and promoting those who are intent on tearing this country apart. This is America, not Mexico or some other hispanic country. It’s ridiculous that in our own country we are subjected to being forced to put up with those who refuse to accept OUR history, culture, language, etc. and expect us to confprm to theirs. Take Jorge and leave!

Rattlerjake
Guest
Rattlerjake

So why is it that you can’t even translate it completely? Dumbazzzzz!

Mike McAllister
Guest
Mike McAllister

So JeffH what’s your excuse????

Sarge
Guest
Sarge

Sorry JeffH but the translation you provided does not make a great deal of sense. If you read an article written in English on an English speaking social media page and you want to make a comment and be understood, write it in English. I lived in Germany for over a decade and when I was with Germans I spoke German. If I was traveling I had to read German well enough to get from point A to point B. When my great-grandparents arrived off the boat from Germany in 1876 at Castle Gardens, they made it a rule to… Read more »