Third Circuit: Second Amendment is a Second Rate Right

Standard Capacity 223 Magazine Bans Ammunition
Standard Capacity 223 Magazine 

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- In a split decision, a three judge panel at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ruled the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a second-rate right, not entitled to the full protections of other enumerated rights.  The opinion was filed on 5 December, 2018. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 18-3170 (3rd Cir. 2018).

The two majority judges followed the trend of other Circuits where the Second Amendment is being degraded and reduced to second-rate status.  Only a month ago, the First Circuit ruled the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home.

The rogue Circuits are able to do this because the Supreme Court has been refusing to hear Second Amendment cases for nearly a decade.  The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases. They are not required to hear all cases.

Some Circuit courts are gutting the Second Amendment by claiming it is not really a right. Rather, they say, it is a privilege the government may regulate if the government thinks it might do some good to regulate it.  These Jurists seem embarrassed by the Second Amendment. They seem to believe their job is to limit it as much as possible, rather than to protect it as a fundamental right.

Judge Stephano Bibas wrote the dissenting opinion in the Third Circuit ruling. He is an outstanding jurist who was appointed by President Trump.  At only 49 years old, he is already the 15th most cited jurist by the Supreme Court. His resume is impressive. It is easy to see why President Trump chose to appoint him. His dissent runs to 19 pages. The first four paragraphs eviscerates the majority decision. From uscourts.gov:

The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy. 554 U.S. at 634-35.

Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here. 

Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistake—that is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was “of little help.” 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers, treating both contested evidence and the lack of evidence as conclusively favoring the government. 

Whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, we should require real evidence that the law furthers the government’s aim and is tailored to that aim. But at key points, the majority substitutes anecdotes and armchair reasoning for the concrete proof that we demand for heightened scrutiny anywhere else. New Jersey has introduced no expert study of how similar magazine restrictions have worked elsewhere. Nor did the District Court identify any other evidence, as opposed to armchair reasoning, that illuminated how this law will reduce the harm from mass shootings. Id. at *12-13. So New Jersey cannot win unless the burden of proof lies with the challengers. It does not.

If the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari (the legal term for agreeing to hear a case before the Supreme Court), Judge Bibas' reasoning is rock solid.

For those who do not follow these cases closely, here is a short explanation of the different levels of scrutiny.

Strict Scrutiny – The highest level of protection, reserved for fundamental Constitutional rights.  To pass this level of legal examination, a law, regulation, or other restriction of a Constitutional right must be required by a compelling state interest, and the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that result. The burden of proof is on the government.

For example: There is a general prohibition on shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. This is a restriction on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The prohibition serves a compelling state interest of public safety. The restriction is narrowly tailored to ban shouting false information that causes severe, direct, physical, harm to others.

A corollary for the Second Amendment would be a general prohibition on firing a gun in a crowded theater when there is no reasonable, deadly threat.

Intermediate Scrutiny- The middle level of protection of less than fundamental rights. The law or regulation must serve an important government objective, and be substantially related to achieving that objective. The burden of proof rests with the government. This level is fairly new, only existing since 1976.

Rational Basis – The lowest level of protection. Generally not applied to rights. It essentially is no protection at all. The party challenging the law or rule has the burden of proof. They have to show the government has *no* legitimate interest in the law, rule, or policy. They have to show there is *no* conceivable rational basis for the law, even if the government never stated one. Laws, rules, or policies are almost never struck down on this basis.

Judge Bibas shows the two majority judges collapsed the level of scrutiny from strict scrutiny to rational basis, while calling it “intermediate scrutiny”.

Second Amendment supporters know the Third Circuit ignored the rule of law and applied their own, cherished, leftist, Progressive, biases to gut Second Amendment protections in this case.

Judge Bibas, in his masterful dissent, shows how they did it.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 213
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    86 Comment threads
    127 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    148 Comment authors
    ROBERT J. CLINEChrisJim MacklinJamesTheHolyCrow Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    ROBERT J. CLINE
    Guest
    ROBERT J. CLINE

    OWR STATE,NEW JERSEY,HAS TAKEN AWAY OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND NOBODY DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT.THEY SAY IT IS A SECOND RATE AMENDMENT.THE BAD GUYS CAN CARRY AND THEY KNOW WE CAN’T.SO WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN? JUST TELL ME WHY DO THEY DO IT.A COP CAN’T EVEN CARRY HIS OWN GUN AFTER HE TURNS 75 YEARS OLD,THEN WHO CAN? THINK ABOUT IT.IT IS SO UNFAIR I AM JUST A 74 YEAR OLD REPUBLICAN REGULAR PERSON,THAT BELONGS TO THE CAMDEN COUNTY SQUARE CIRCLE SPORTSMAN CLUB FOR 15 YEARS,(HONOR GROUP #2) BUT I STILL CAN’T CARRY.I HAVE PERMITS TO CONCEALED CARRY… Read more »

    Harry Flashman
    Guest
    Harry Flashman

    “The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases. They are not required to hear all cases.”
    That shit needs to change….starting now.

    Chris
    Guest
    Chris

    Perhaps the conservative wing of the Court is waiting for another seat to open (RBG) before they take a 2A case to ensure enough justices are “on board.”?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    “For example: There is a general prohibition on shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. This is a restriction on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The prohibition serves a compelling state interest of public safety.” Actually that “general prohibition” does not exist, That “general prohibition” was made up by Oliver Wendal Holmes, Jr to limit the peoples’ speech rights. Holmes could not stand the thought of the people of the US not being under control, because of their conduct. So Holmes sought ways to give the state power to control them where none… Read more »

    American Patriot
    Guest
    American Patriot

    A huge error I find, is many people assuming the supreme court holds authority to rule, they do not, they can only write opinions, not pass rulings or laws. The supreme court is NOT judicial, it holds NO constitutional powers. The supreme court was NEVER granted power, there are other courts for such purposes. Opinions are not law, and nobody has to obey any opinion, nor are they legally obligated to obey an employee. The supreme court was not granted any enumerated authority, and powers not granted to government, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. Government… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    I recommend you read Article III Clause 2, where it says “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — … ” It’s a full paragraph long, and covers most every kind of legal controversy that can possibly come up.

    Richard
    Guest
    Richard

    Yes exactly. Thank you. People need to wake up. I’m willing and able let’s start this and take back our country!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Richard, Communication, here, is not secure. The Fat Boy Institute uses Carnivore; The Secret Service uses Triggerfish; and the NSA uses Prism, Blarney, and Stellar Wind programs to search the internet for communications such as yours. If you do not define “start this”, conspire with another, or take an overt action, then you may be alright.

    Carl
    Guest
    Carl

    I can’t believe these liberal picks can’t comprehen or maybe they can’t read shall not be infringed . If they can read and write they ought to be hung our fore father’s went through this . I guess it is time to clean the old shot gun

    Craig
    Guest
    Craig

    WELL?
    The PEOPLE created the cities. The PEOPLE created the states. The PEOPLE created the federal government.
    THEY are our SERVANTS, NOT our masters.
    Why do you think the Constitution says the PEOPLE have guns. It NEVER says the government, our servant, can.
    Any law not in 100% harmony with the U.S. Constitution is null & void.
    You folks always say “our guns are for protection from tyranny”. WELL, HERE IT IS!! TYRANNY!
    Grow some BALLS, organize and take your state back.
    Or, sit in your mama’s basement, drink beer and tell yourself how tough you are.

    nathan Stewart
    Guest
    nathan Stewart

    This is a direct contradiction of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990). All rights reserved “To The People” must receive exactly the same protection under the law.

    “the people’ . . . in the Second Amendment must have the same meaning, and protect the same class of individuals, as . . . in the First and Fourth Amendments”

    https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    It appears to me the article you link to raises serious questions about that assertion, though I agree it should not. I read the whole thing, and my take is that the confusion is more the result of trying to find exceptions to the intent of the Bill of Rights than it is in accepting the Bill of Rights. And I note both the underlying premise of the article, and several cited court rulings therein, refer to the government and/or Constitution’s “grant” of rights rather than inherent rights. This is flatly wrong and at odds with the writings and intent… Read more »

    Tom
    Guest
    Tom

    Donald L. Cline
    There is no confusion. That would be honest ignorance.
    They are interpreting the constitution wrong on purpose because they do not like the people having the right to defend against the gov’t, since they are part of that gov’t.
    The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed! It does not say anything about bearing arms in the home! It does not limit that right and any limit to that right or attempt to regulate it as regulating it is limiting it, is a infringement plain and simple!

    Donld L. Cline
    Guest
    Donld L. Cline

    Full agreement.

    l2a3
    Guest
    l2a3

    It is evident that these liberal politicians have never looked at our experience with the current war game in Afghanistan. These fools are living under their false sense of “security” and fail to recognize there are things more dangerous than firearms and large capacity magazines held by lawful citizens. How many LEO, innocent people and family members are they willing to sacrifice to fulfill their fantasy? Will they step forward and take the hit for what they believe? No??? I didn’t think so. I doubt they have ever stood for anything they truly believed in that someone didn’t pay them… Read more »

    AMERICAN PATRIOT
    Guest
    AMERICAN PATRIOT

    THE TYRANT THAT FORCES ENTRY INTO OUR HOME, TAKE PROPERTY FROM US WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, ASSAULTS US, TERRORIZES US, SHALL BE SHOT DEAD…AND WE WILL CONTINUE SHOOTING EVERY PERSON DEAD, UNTIL THEY GIVE UP! OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT UNDER CONTROL OF THE HIRED HELP, AND THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS, POWERS OR AUTHORITY TO ANY EMPLOYEE THAT ARE SUPERIOR TO THE RIGHTS AND POWER OF THE PEOPLE…WE COME FIRST, NOT THE HIRED HELP! IF YOU COME TO TERRORIZE, STEAL AND SLAUGHTER, WE THE PEOPLE WILL KILL YOU FOR YOUR EFFORT, AND HANG THE REMAINDER, OR DECAPITATE YOU AND PLACE… Read more »

    Concerned Citizen
    Guest
    Concerned Citizen

    Calm down tough guy. why don’t you get all of your friends, family, neighbors and fellow country men who the feel the same; and make a difference? Get off of social media. I agree with most of your thoughts and conclusions, but right now you’re just being the same as every libtard out there.. How about the 10k of us disagreeing with this post, Make a difference? No one. Thats what i thought. Stand idle and keep telling your self centered ass ” it won’t happen to me; MURICA” it has already happened bud. It’s been going on for 40… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Gorsh, American Patriot; I wish you weren’t so shy and retiring. C’mon and tell us how you REALLY feel!

    (Seriously, with talk like that, you could be a plant from the other side, trying to justify rounding us all up. I’ve had fedgoons do that over using PGP encryption, so it is not out of the realm of possibility.)

    Jeff Brodhead
    Guest
    Jeff Brodhead

    Reset the entire damned system, right down to, but excluding the Bill of Rights (A1…10)

    The Declaration of Independence already made clear that ALL men (humans) are created equal, so 13A is not necessary.

    Draining the SWAMP is not working fast enough to resolve the accumulated, steaming pile of abuses of power.

    It is well within the Right of the People to strip it all down to the bare bones, just as the Founders did, when prying the Colonies from the greedy, corrupt paws of British rule.

    Jt
    Guest
    Jt

    Hahahahahaha you half-wits are going to loose your boom sticks. How will you make up for your tiny dicks? Bigger pickup trucks I guess. Lmmfao.

    Kevin
    Guest
    Kevin

    No. We,re coming to your house first.

    warhorse
    Guest
    warhorse

    and you half-wits can’t even do the math to figure out you ain’t got the manpower to take them. keep poking that wolverine with a sharp stick and see what happens.

    ed
    Guest
    ed

    you sound like you only like big dicks..

    Paco
    Guest
    Paco

    Not a chance in hell, and whose gonna take them, YOU?, hahhahahahaha, with what? Now follow the other sheep off the cliff lefty. These liberal judges are grabbing at straws trying to make something stick before they loose all power. However, When the Supreme Court takes a second amendment case, all these liberal judges will be over turned and all infringements will be repealed. The amendments were listed in a a certain order for a reason, it’s not a mistake that the right to bear arms is the 2nd one. It’s called importance.

    Robert Mccallum
    Guest
    Robert Mccallum

    It’s sad how uneducated you libs are. You don’t even know the difference between “loose” and “lose”. We the people will never “lose” our firearms, but you are welcome to come try and take them.. although I highly doubt a coward like you will be doing it

    B.A.Taylor
    Guest
    B.A.Taylor

    Come and take them Jt.

    Hey-Who
    Guest
    Hey-Who

    JT: Keep playing and you will found out. You clearly should of been an abortion or that specimen that wet the bed sheets, dripping down that prostitute mother of yours legs.

    Jeff Brodhead
    Guest
    Jeff Brodhead

    Abortion is the murder of innocent children.
    I wish people wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

    John M. Browning
    Guest
    John M. Browning

    Jt, Be careful what you wish for. When gun owners “loose” thier boom sticks they will be aimed at the leftists like you first.

    Struman Gruma
    Guest
    Struman Gruma

    You only have the courage to say that online. In person, you know you would get your eyes replaced by your tiny balls.

    Nick
    Guest
    Nick

    You’re such an Putz! Were you raised by two gay Parents In Cal? Don’t tell me I bet you are 5′ 6″ and 145 with a big Mouth lol!

    Jeff
    Guest
    Jeff

    Just wondering how exactly you make the connection between this article and tiny dicks? I presume this is something you spent quite a bit of time fantasizing about. Or perhaps it was just a toss away.

    CAVU
    Guest
    CAVU

    Looks like someone is projecting his own ‘inadequacy’ onto others in a pathetic attempt to soothe his fragile ego and sense of inferiority.

    Julia
    Guest
    Julia

    Maybe you need a history lesson. You would probably be among the first to be terminated by the socialist or communist government you wish for.

    William Hensley
    Guest
    William Hensley

    I don’t know maybe your wife and mom can help us out they love boomsticks

    William Hensley
    Guest
    William Hensley

    I don’t know about all that odd you compare this conversation to dicks is that your thing I’m sure your wife or mom will help with the dick measurements HaHaHaHa

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    Applying a “pecking order” of importance to the Amendments in the BoR that the right to keep and bear arms and create an unorganized militia began as the 5th amendment and was #4 when submitted to the States for ratification.
    The First was #2.

    Maybe #9 should be first, followed by #10., No doubt each amendment in the BoR is equally important. The Constitution of 1787 would have failed ratification w/o the BoR.
    Repealing any amendment in the BoR would in fact undo the United States Constitution.

    Jeff Brodhead
    Guest
    Jeff Brodhead

    There is good reason some wanted NOT to have the Bill of Rights at all – government would TAKE the words in the “BoR” and claim authority over those words…

    Both sides were correct, which leaves us with the maximum reset cycle proposed by Jefferson (25 years), in order to clean house.

    Andy
    Guest
    Andy

    Judicial recklessness is unfortunate, but fixable. The people need a constitutional mechanism to vote on these turkeys after their first six, eight, or ten years on the bench, when their votes and opinions may be counted and weighed in the balance. We only have the ballot box, the jury box, and the bullet box as remedies presently. It is time to see that we, the people, have a measured say in keeping these unelected idiots in check.

    Ken
    Guest
    Ken

    I really don’t think these Judges or Democrats in congress really understand gun owners and their attachment to the weapons they own. They can pass all the laws they want, I think they believe the people are going to say “Oh, I’m going to give up my guns because of the new law” I firmly believe that this gun issue is going to be pushed to far and at some point Americans are going to say enough is enough, and there is going to be blood shed, Political, or be taken out on law enforcement. It is a ” right,”… Read more »

    E B
    Guest
    E B

    With you brother! Keeping mine through he’ll or high water.

    JOSEPH STOCK
    Guest
    JOSEPH STOCK

    You are very eloquent in your writing sir. I do not own a gun but believe it is everyones right to do so if they choose.

    Daniel
    Guest
    Daniel

    It’s your duty to be ready to defend your family, the nation, and the Constitution, Mr. Stock. I suggest you remedy your missing rifle situation immediately.

    JasonPinWisconsin
    Guest
    JasonPinWisconsin

    Just as it is every man’s(person’s) RIGHT to possess a weapon, it is also every man’s (person’s) RIGHT *not* to. So long as those that choose not to do not stand in the way of those that choose to exercise that Right.

    Heartland Patriot
    Guest
    Heartland Patriot

    I don’t have an attachment to my guns so much as an attachment to my basic freedom. The mere act of owning and using firearms AS I SEE FIT, though not in a criminal manner, bulwarks that freedom.

    grizzman1
    Guest
    grizzman1

    TRUE GUN CONTROL THAT WOULD WORK! FACT!!!!!!!!! Gun control doesn’t work, just look at how well the criminals in Chicago obey the gun laws. Gun control that would really work would be, if you use a gun for any crime, you go to prison for life! You’d get no visitors, TV, Magazines or books, radio, coffee, work out rooms, etc…! That’s just to name a few things you’d never get again, because you’d get nothing but the gruel for food! The only time you’d get a visitor would be when you’re on the way for your death penalty to be… Read more »

    Corey Wright
    Guest
    Corey Wright

    ^ I don’t think guy should be able to buy a gun. FBI please.

    grizzman1
    Guest
    grizzman1

    Hey corey, The no CAP letter on your name is, as a milk-sop, you deserve no respect! Do you still live with MOMMIE at 40+ years old, under her skirt? Seems as though the Socialistic Leftist DemoTARD Pinko Commie EdumaKation you received is working very well, if you don’t believe in the DEATH PENALTY! What the point is, is that my options take the BURDEN off of someone else having to put them DOWN, as the RAPID DOGS they were in society! Look up milk-sop if your Commie EdumaKation taught you how to use a dictionary! Get a JOB! Move… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    orey Wright: No, you don’t think.

    B.A.Taylor
    Guest
    B.A.Taylor

    I agree with everything except the washing and sterilizing part.

    T.J. Clark, Jr.
    Guest
    T.J. Clark, Jr.

    No, someone shouldn’t go to prison for life because they used a gun in a crime. Life sentences should only be used for people convicted of murder by circumstantial evidence. The death penalty should only be given to someone that has been proven beyond a doubt to have committed murder. The only real gun law is the 2n amendment meaning that every citizen (not in jail) has the right to a gun and anyone released from jail should get their gun rights back regardless of what they were in jail for. Early America there were no laws that stripped you… Read more »

    Kaido
    Guest
    Kaido

    The US Supreme Court created this mess in 1867 with their Arbitary and Capricious creation of the monstrosity known as the “Incorporation Doctrine” . Which essentially Defactoly Revoked the 2nd and all Enumerated Amendments in the Bill of Rights to the American people. Until each and every Amendment would go through a Test Case process ending in the US Supreme Court. Why was this made so? Upon the adaption of the 14th Amendment Deep State Burocrats feared millions of Freed Slaves,Former Confederates and Native Indian Peoples could possible revolt and again creating a divide a new Civil War so they… Read more »

    Jeff Brodhead
    Guest
    Jeff Brodhead

    See Bruce Ray Riggs’ intro at http://www.DirtyUncleSam.com Whenever I vote, or fill out any other document requiring that I “swear I am a citizen of the United States…”, I asterisk the word “citizen” and annotate the affidavit with the statement declaring “By fact of my birth to Citizen parents, in the County of [______], in the Commonweath of [________], I am an ipso facto Citizen of the United States. By this statement, I have placed the State in which I reside and THEREBY its Federal master, on notice each and every time I have voted, over the last several years.… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Two points, Kaido: First, there is an alternative solution that MAY come to fruition if the people will turn their attention to it: The sovereign nation-States brought the federal government into the world and the sovereign nation-States can take it out. Specifically to the instant discussion, the States outrank the federal government and have the capacity to overrule the Supreme Court each, individually, within their borders and collectively, nationwide. But the people, instead of railing against the federal government, need to turn their attention to their State legislators and demand they declare the 17th Amendment invalid by reason of the… Read more »

    TheHolyCrow
    Guest
    TheHolyCrow

    Are you referring to “The Act of 1871” whereby the US was incorporated and became wholly owned by the International Bankster Gangsters, due to the bankruptcy caused by the Civil War ? Well, that all may be null and void because it all came about by fraud and the murder of Lincoln, and besides, they did it all without informing WE THE PEOPLE, so they can just go p*ss up a rope. The Golden Rule is…those who have the gold and the guns make the rules. The Rothschild Khazarian Bankster Gangsters are on the way down and out, along with… Read more »

    Kaido
    Guest
    Kaido

    The US Supreme Court bears most fault of why these Infringing Mala Prohibita Laws against the Right To Keep And Bear Arms keep being made. In circa 1876 with the creation of the 14th Amendment, the then Deep State Burocrats were afraid of Millions of Freed Slaves,Former Confederates and Native peoples (Indians) possibly starting up another Civil War, Divide in America. So they essentially Nullified the 2nd and all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights by creating the absurd Arbitary and Capricious; “Incorporation Doctrine”. Which basicly decreed all of the Amendments enumersted in the Bill of Rights to be… Read more »

    Travis Hulse
    Guest
    Travis Hulse

    It s nice to see that I am not the only one who feels so strongly about my rights . God given no man should be able to have the power to take them away.I fear the motivation behind all of this isn’t just the simple minded liberal,but the global elites and the u n . If our guns disappear, tomorrow there will be u n soldiers on every street corner in America.

    Ted
    Guest
    Ted

    They are everyday. These a
    Jerks think they have some right to tell us how to live our lives because they got more votes. Stupidity

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Travis Hulse: Your fear is well-placed and appropriate; that is the full-on intent of the Marxist insurgency chipping away at our Rule of Law form of government since COMINTERN in 1925. We are the only nation on the planet, and the first in over fifty centuries, to be founded on the principle of liberty under the rule of law instead of tyranny under the rule of man. The tyrants of the world cannot stand to not be regarded as our “rightful masters;” it chafes their butt. While the insurgency is Marxist, the tyrants don’t care about political ideology; they don’t… Read more »

    James
    Guest
    James

    Donald it’s funny you mentioned 500 rounds, because i just bought a case tonight of 9MM Luger with S&H AND Taxes for $107.43
    it was an over run for Military and LEO.
    so was a great deal.

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    The average soldier carries a combat load of perhaps 180-400 rounds. In WWII some soldiers didn’t fire 100 rounds in anger from D-Day to spring 1945.
    Some soldiers in the Sand Box might fire 20 shots a month with 20 kills.
    In Chicago, the street gangs might fire a few hundred rounds of stolen ammunition. But the Crips, Bloods and 2nd Streeters and Junior Boys get their training from watching old TV re-runs of THE UNTOUCHABLES or maybe BATMAN.

    Bergman
    Guest
    Bergman

    The problem with any magazine capacity ban is that weight and volume differences are negligible between different sizes of magazines, and they’re designed to be easy and quick to swap out. You can find any number of YouTube videos that show just how fast a magazine change can happen — it’s blink and you missed it fast. So why are the anti-gun nuts so hot for the idea of magazine bans? Not all of them are so ignorant as to believe they’ll have any effect on much of anything. No, this is one of those Baby Steps Senator Feinstein referred… Read more »

    AMERICAN PATRIOT
    Guest
    AMERICAN PATRIOT

    MAG SWAPS ARE FAST AND EASY, BUT NEVER LEAVE AN EMPTY MAGAZINE ON THE GROUND, IT WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU LATER!

    IF YOU FINALLY RUN OUT OF AMMO, SAVE A BULLET…SHOOT THE NEXT TRAITOR AND TAKE THEIR GUNS…KEEP SHOOTING!

    Petra Spahr
    Guest
    Petra Spahr

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State… ” There, fixed it for you, the part about the State Militia needing to be regulated. Well regulated. The tide is turning, get used to it.

    Edward Weber
    Guest
    Edward Weber

    Educate yourself on what the word “regulated” meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and passed. THEN come back to us and we can enter an informed, educated, discussion.

    The Spirit of America
    Guest
    The Spirit of America

    Petra Spahr, By your baised arrogwbt answer you obviously no nothing about the fact of tge chsnge in wordage overvhubdredscof years. Languages change every 5 years. Meanings change, new words are added and old ones are dropped. For instance many years ago the word “Gay” meant “Gleeful or Happy”. It was only within the last 35+ years that the words Gay was reapplied to infer definetion meaning for homosexual sexual orientation. In 1787 American English meaning the Words of “Well Regulated” meaning was that of having weapons and equipment of a Standard Well Regulated Condition which in modern 20th and… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Spirit, PS is working awfully hard to get a response. Low level propagandists that earn their living by getting responses need money for Christmas, too. I am not going to help them. Merry Christmas to all patriots and a happy new rifle!

    The Spirit of America
    Guest
    The Spirit of America

    Yes indeed Wild Bill, I wonder who’s paying her to spred lies and misinformation Neo Communist propaganda?
    We shall bring forth the Truth!
    My SF Auto correct is messing up at times.

    Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas to All and Down with Neo International Socialism!

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    The Second Amendment is all about the unorganized militia, similar the the Colonial Minutemen. The Congress held control of the paid, uniformed state militias in Article One, Section 8. Patrick Henry and others objected that a militia paid and controlled by the government was no protection for and of the people. Patrick Henry spoke out in the Virginia Ratification Hearings and his words can be found in Elliot’s DEBATES. I wob’t quote all of his speeches, but one stands out. Henry said that the organized militia would desert the people and fight against the people in order to keep a… Read more »

    JBnTx
    Guest
    JBnTx

    If I may. Allow me to simpify. The gun ban advocates have been using the “regulated militia” erroneous argument for years. One fallacy is equating “militia”
    to military. But I digress. The 1st 3 words of the Constitution are “We the People” the Bill of Rights were written as inalienable rights of “We the People.”
    Ergo, as the Constitution was written for “We the People” so was the right to keep and bear arms specifically for “the People” both as individuals and as a whole.
    Removes the silly notion of anything about some mythical “regulated militia.”

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    In 1773 the citizens of Boston dumped the King’s tea in the harbor to protest a 2% tea tax. The King sent an Army to Boston. Boston had 15,000 residents and the Army was 4,000. This was about one soldier for each man resident. Women and child probably numbered 8,000. It was a big army of occupation. That is why we have the Third Amendment. As for the Second Amendment the Declaration of Independence says that the People need to be able to form an unorganized, militia that will not be under government control. It is obvious that the Governor… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    There is only one legitimate level of scrutiny available to a lawful Supreme Court: “Strict scrutiny.” If a case before the court does not rise to a level requiring strict scrutiny to protect the inherent rights of every human being, then it does not rise to a level requiring SCOTUS attention. Furthermore, no State government has the authority to interfere with the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms — any personal defensive arms, anywhere the citizen has a right to be, openly or concealed — and so-called “States’ rights” have nothing to do with it: The States… Read more »

    Kirk
    Guest
    Kirk

    Totally agree with your analysis. The 2nd Amendments’ placement within our U.S. Constitution is in the second position for good reason. It is there to protect the 1st Amendment, our right to free speech, before it. Without the 2nd Amendment, we no way to protect the first or our other Amendments which follow it. The writers knew this better than we do, that it is why it holds the second position. When the 2nd Amendment falls to statism, America ceases to be America.

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    There is one Bill of Rights and what we call the Second Amendment began as the fifth. It was the fourth when sent to the States for ratification. What we call the First was the third.
    The original first is the 27th.
    The Bill of Rights is one whole and it protects all the rest. If the Second Amendment is being repealed then the whole Constitution become null and no part of the government remain valid.

    An American
    Guest
    An American

    The American People was sold out to the Federal government in the 40s since then they have made over 3500 Law’s against the American People, I will say that makes us All Slaves to the Federal government!!

    concerned-citizen
    Guest
    concerned-citizen

    Gov’t is a massive failure and fraud and the true CRIMINALS period!!

    Kieth
    Guest
    Kieth

    While I agree that these Judges are not acting in good faith to the constitution. I think talk of hanging or worse ruins the argument. Is this the thinking of the web master too? I love my 45Mag and would resist an attempt to have it taken from me but come on people your feeding the fear that these people believe of us

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Keith, Those people are feeding my fear and I am in the company of the founding fathers. If these unconstitutional judicial decisions, bureaucratic “rules with the force and effect of law”, other federal and state statutes, and the people that make and enforce them are allowed to stand, we will no longer be free people. Your individual resistance will be characterized as a crime, and do nothing to preserve anyone’s rights. It is not up to us to stop, so that they feel comfortable. They will never change their minds, no matter how comfortable they feel. It is up to… Read more »

    C lockwood
    Guest
    C lockwood

    These collage educated people need to go back to grade school what part of shall not be infringed it is that simple if I don’t do my job correctly I would be fired how can they do this every day and get away with it these characters think they invincible fire them all and start over

    Skektek
    Guest
    Skektek

    Smack my kid,
    Hug my gun,
    I only vote Republican.

    AK49
    Guest
    AK49

    So, put your kid on hormone blockers and only make guns available for criminals, we should al vote Communist? See, everyone can play that game, Skektek

    Lynn Russell
    Guest
    Lynn Russell

    Nice to see some in our country know the constitution and can converse about its contents intelligently. Schools don’t teach civics any more; I wonder why? Corporate united states wants slaves for business not sovereign intelligent creative citizens participating in governance and growth, as the Maker and Founders intend. Thank you, folks, for feeding my faith in humanity.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Schools don’t teach civics any more because the covert Marxist insurgency we have endured since COMINTERN in 1925 has succeeded in their efforts to remove such programs from the public school system to make passionate, uneducated, frankly ignorant doofuses vulnerable to seduction by the apparatchiks of totalitarian socialism. This is why we now have “Ban Assault Weapons Now” (BAWN), who will block any commenter trying to educate these doofuses, and March For Our Lives, which has now been pretty much dominated by posts explaining the stupidity and counter-productivity of their fascist/liberal-sponsored movement.

    Lee
    Guest
    Lee

    Mr. Jefferson clearly stated that we will not need our second Amendment until they try to take it!

    AMERICAN PATRIOT
    Guest
    AMERICAN PATRIOT

    THE TIME HAS ARRIVED, TO FULLY EXECUTE OUR TRAITOROUS GOVERNMENT!
    GOVERNMENT SERVES NO PURPOSE OR NEED ANY LONGER, IT HAS BECOME A MONSTER, AND IS CHEWING AWAY VAST PORTIONS OF FREEDOMS OUR HERITAGE DIED TO DEFEND!

    GOVERNMENT MUST DIE!

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    come and get it, libtard d-rat d-suckers

    Thomas
    Guest
    Thomas

    The time is fast approaching that the judges who think that our rights are a privilege granted to us by the government be dragged from their lofty benches and hanged in the streets. To try and say that somehow one right is a primary right and another in that same document is not, give us just reason to eliminate these traitors. Judges are suppose to rule on the laws not make laws from the bench. The second amendment is not just about protecting our homes, it’s not just about hunting, its primary purpose is to ensure that the government can… Read more »

    James Higginbotham
    Guest
    James Higginbotham

    WELL SAID Thomas, and the thing is this, none of them think THEY can be reached or touched HOW WRONG THEY ARE..
    because WHEN THE SHTF, NONE OF THEM CAL FIND A SAFE PLACE TO BE,

    Lynn Russell
    Guest
    Lynn Russell

    Agreed. Constitution allows for impeachment of any and all civil servants if needed or appropriate. Somehow judicial branch thinks they ate immune. I don’t think so. The constitution says whay it means and means what the words say.

    Michael Harris
    Guest
    Michael Harris

    Amen and AMEN!!!

    JConnor
    Guest
    JConnor

    Nothing new. Government infringing on citizens rights. Citizens complain and say it’s time to do something about it. Reality is citizens won’t do anything because there is no real organized folks to launch the so called “fight for our constitutional rights”. Sure there may be citizens that may be ready but none of them know how to lead such a thing. Otherwise the movement would have initiated full force by now. Most would say it’s a little too late. One thing is for sure, each day that passes by without citizens doing anything about this is certainly getting them closer… Read more »

    Cheyanne
    Guest
    Cheyanne

    USFREEDOMARMY.COM

    Ed H
    Guest
    Ed H

    Very well said Thomas and the only thing I might add is when the 2nd Amendment also says these may not be infringed on, I believe that also apples to these judges that espouse these incorrect directives..

    H. Suearte
    Guest
    H. Suearte

    For example other states grow in favor of the legalization of controlled substances as the federal government chooses not to recognize or warrant banking of profits collected we are forced to seek other governments foreign and domestic for support this includes corporations who’s intest is invested.
    The same will hold true as with any law the federal government chooses to apply. It is only as good if it is enforced.
    Laws are only words until that time.

    Larry Hasbro
    Guest
    Larry Hasbro

    DEMORATS AND LIBERALS ARE THE RUINATION OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY FOR EVERY TRUE AMERICAN CITIZEN

    The Grey Man
    Guest
    The Grey Man

    Those who seek to disarm the American citizen work for those who would enslave us, kill us, or both. History shows no exception.

    Kevin Cote
    Guest
    Kevin Cote

    Shall not be infringed. These are not ” Judges ” they are administrators of a foriegn owned for profit corporation. What they say and do is irrelevant if you are not their subject which most of you are not. A ” citizen ” is a subject . Who are you a subject of ? If we have a ” Republic ” form of government then all govdrnment is a subject of us, the people. Our servants take an oath to uphold ” The Constitution ” ..but which one ? There are at least 3. The original 1789 is the one… Read more »

    Christian
    Guest
    Christian

    I am very glad your eyes are opened sir.
    This good country, America, needs more of your kind.

    Fred
    Guest
    Fred

    If we stand by and let the 2nd fall, all others will quickly follow. Only fools think otherwise! Once the government can disarm the populace, they can control us! Remember, they work FOR US, not US for THEM!

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Anonymous 3523: Must we really, for more than the hundredth time, explain here the difference between a privilege, which can be granted or denied by governments, and inherent Rights, which cannot? Nope, do your own homework and look it up!

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    ” The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here.” Without writing three big books Justice Scalia was wrong, self-defense and Judge Bibas was wrong . Such right to self-defense was so common and expected that it was included in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment catch-all. The core of the Second Amendment is wrapped up in the words “security of a free state”… Read more »

    James Higginbotham
    Guest
    James Higginbotham

    very well said. and people were carrying their arms way before this nation even became a country neither the Congress, Senate, Judiciary, or President has the ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS TO DISARM OR CONFISCATE THE FIREARMS FROM WE THE PEOPLE. and THE PURPOSE OF OUR 2ND AMENDMENT IS TO STOP THEM JUST FROM TRYING THAT WITH OUR ARMS. BECAUSE AS WE SEE TODAY, THEY HAVE BECOME TYRANNICAL RUN AMOK TRAITORS WHO WANT TO DICTATE AND TRY AND TELL US THAT OUR RIGHTS ARE PRIVILEGES FROM THE GOVT, WHEN OUR RIGHTS COME FROM GODS NATURE LAWS, AND TO BE PROTECTED BY THE… Read more »

    American Patriot
    Guest
    American Patriot

    NOT ONLY DO OUR RIGHTS EXIST WITH THEM, OUR RIGHTS WERE IN FULL EFFECT BEFORE THEM. THESE TRAITORS DO NOT HOLD POWER OR AUTHORITY TO TAKE THAT WHICH WAS NEVER THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH. MAKING UP LAWS WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION, MUST BE VIEWED AS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE PEOPLE, AND TO THE NATION! GOVERNMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS THE CREATION OF THE PEOPLE, NOT BY THE EMPLOYEES OR ELECTED TERRORISTS THAT ARE TRYING TO DESTROY, THEN CONTROL US, THEIR LEGITIMATE RULERS! IT MIGHT BE CLOSE TO ENACTING THE ‘FINAL SOLUTION’ TO RID THIS NATION OF… Read more »

    Terry Hardiman
    Guest
    Terry Hardiman

    Jim I stand with you totally. It can’t be stated more pure.