“A federal judge in Chicago denied a Naperville gun store owner and other plaintiffs a temporary restraining order against the Illinois assault weapons ban,” ABC 7 Eyewitness News reported.
“Two state lawsuits … have succeeded in getting temporary restraining orders against the ban for thousands of plaintiffs,” the report notes, while pointing out a significant difference with this development. “This is the first ruling issued in federal court, and the first to deny a temporary restraining order against the ban.”
“Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition,” United State District Judge Virginia M. Kendall wrote in the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Bevis v. Naperville. “Naperville and Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale, and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales. That decision comports with the Second Amendment…”
No, it comports with some past decisions where judges proved deliberately indifferent to “shall not be infringed” and fraudulently “legitimized” subversive legislation that did just that. If Kendall wants to talk about comporting with the Second Amendment, she’ll first need to be intellectually honest and logically consistent enough to admit “weapons of war” are precisely what “We the People” are entitled to have.
In U.S. v. Miller, the “landmark” case from 1939, the Supreme Court observed a weapon would need to have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Who but someone willfully deluding herself, a liar, or both, would deliberately ignore that the militia is comprised of citizens “capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”? Its function was — and still is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia did not assemble on the green bearing torches and pitchforks. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.
To suggest the Framers of the Constitution meant anything else is to accuse them of being incompetent and insane, and of codifying into “the supreme Law of the Land” that sending an ill-equipped citizenry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.”
Judge Kendall is being neither honest nor consistent in imposing her personal political biases to help swindle her countrymen out of what Continental Congress delegate Tench Coxe called their “birthright.” What makes that especially intolerable is she was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, a Republican the National Rifle Association endorsed, apparently because he “and Vice President Cheney both love to hunt and fish.”
“They know the Constitution gives people the personal right to bear arms,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre assured the membership. “And, they want to pass the values of our Nation on to a new generation.”
NRA and the Brady Center both arguing over which rights the Constitution gives might help explain why the new generation finds things so confusing. You’d think at least Wayne would know better. It might also help explain why the bar for “A” ratings and endorsements is sometimes set so low.
“Kendall was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 21, 2005, on a Senate vote and received commission on January 3, 2006,” Ballotpedia documents. That made it during the 109th Congress, where both the House, and more importantly the Senate since it’s the body Constitutionally authorized to advise and consent on nominees, were controlled by the Republicans.
Kendall’s sitting on the bench and making inane, unsupportable (by Founding intent) rulings, is on them. And a big part of the reason for that is nominees are traditionally given a pass on tough questions about “their views on legal or constitutional issues.”
Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. So there’s no reason, at least a legitimate one, why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. There’s no reason, again at least a legitimate one, why answers to specific questions of legal understanding and principles should not be expected.
There’s no reason to trust any politician who thinks the voters shouldn’t be informed of what a nominee’s understandings and principles are. Because until that changes, we’ll continue to have statist tools like Kendall codifying the evisceration of their countrymen’s rights from positions of power and privilege while those who put them there continue inflicting appointed despots, apparatchiks, and outright boobs on their constituents.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
do these judges have to do continuing education classes like i had to do, or do they read scotus rulings as part of their job? if so, she would not have ruled this way violating the recent bruen case, the heller and mcdonald decisions stating that semi-automatice firearms nor standard capacity magazines are violating any law. people like this should be removed from the bench and ostracized for their tyrannical abuse of power, which they should never again wield.
The word of art “firearm” is a made up term, even just one little screw or spring or pin that is used in a gun can be considered to be a “firearm”!! Therefor, it invokes the Void for vagueness doctrine! We need to stop using that fake word and go back to using gun again. Call rifles what they really are, long guns. And don’t forget to expose the crimes that the legal system commits on a daily basis in order to operate and make its profits! If no profits are being made in a business, then what is the… Read more »
judges should not be appointed for life.
I’m sick of these lower courts ignoring the Supreme Court. It’s long overdue for these activist judges and politicians to be held responsible financially and criminally for their contempt of SCOTUS
No, judge, neither are particularly dangerous, and cannot be, as they are owned in the tens of millions, … in common use. Everyone should ignore her and follow the Constitution.
Any judge that violates thier oath to uphold the constitution needs immediately removed from the bench and removed from the bar if they are a lawyer also . They should be revoked from practicing law for life on American soil.
The American Bar Association and the state affiliates are communist entities. They only endorse soft on crime judicial candidates in my state. If we see any judge sporting an endorsement by the Bar, we skip on past that name, usually the only one on the ballot.
M454 – if such a policy were in place (and enforced) I would expect a whole lot of ‘judges’ would recuse themselves from a lot of cases that are brought before them.
sic semper tyrannis
““They know the Constitution gives people the personal right to bear arms,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre assured the membership. “And, they want to pass the values of our Nation on to a new generation.””
An outright denial of natural rights. It’s official: NRA is controlled opposition, not merely corrupt and incompetent.
Now days the NRA does more harm than good. Mr LaPierre and the BOD need to resign, to restore creditably back to the NRA. In the mean time I will support and donate to GOA, SAF and my state firearm association.
Sorry, but the Constitution does not give the people the personal right to bear arms. The Constitution prevents the government from infringing on our natural rights to bear arms, or it’s supposed to. The entire Bill of Rights are negative rights imposed on the government, laying out what they can’t do.
ONLY someone who is insane, or grossly uneducated, would ever entertain the thought that they could get a fair shake in the 100% corrupted legal system!! Just how deep does the brainwashing go on that subject? Is it like someone putting a bowl of cereal with spoiled milk on it back in the fridge, hoping that when they come back to it later on, it will be better? NO!! It gets only WORSE over time, not any better!! The ONLY way out of this mess, is to dismantle the entire corrupted legal system! And the way to do that, is… Read more »