Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Why Believers In The 2nd Amendment Can’t Depend On The Courts

We as Americans like to think that, at the end of the day, no matter how much elected officials try to impose tyranny upon us, the court will stand up for our rights and balance the legislature and executive branches with good ole fashioned constitutional beat downs.

Yet, if that was the case, decisions like Heller v DC and MacDonald v Chicago would have been decided by the Supreme Court by 9-0 rulings in favor of the 2nd Amendment.  Yet, the result in actuality is that the 2nd Amendment still exists in America because of a single vote.

Why is that?  Because judges are not paragons of infallibility…they are simply people who SHOULD follow the Constitution but when it comes down to it are just as likely to ignore their oath as a politician is.  And speaking of politicians, on the Federal level, judges are appointed BY politicians.

At this point we have to look at who is doing the appointing.  Recently, since the Democrats changed the rules in order to hijack the process and force all of Obama’s left wing radicals through with no ability by Republicans to filibuster and actually force the question of whether they are qualified or, you know, BELIEVE in the US Constitution, the makeup of the Federal Court system has had a diametric shift.

For the first time in over a decade, judges appointed by Democrat presidents far outnumber those appointed by Republican presidents.  Of the 13 US Courts of Appeals, Democrat appointees hold a majority on 9 of them.  The Supreme court does not hear every case, so these are the courts that will be doing the heavy lifting in deciding whether what Mr. Obama does is Constitutional or not.  This ranges from gun control, to immigration, environmental actions etc.

As gun hating Senator from New York Chuck Schumer put it:

“With all the gridlock, it is forgotten that one of the most profound changes this Congress made was filling the bench.  This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten.”

Another gun hating Senator, Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has put it this way:

“The rawness and the starkness of the political clashes in the courts has highlighted the need to have people there that are of an ideological like mind.

In other words, he wants to stack the courts with gun grabbing zealots like himself, Schumer and Obama.

While it is true that just because a person is appointed a judge by one political party does not mean they will side with that ideology, it does seem that Republicans tend to nominate sleeping liberal lions to the bench that make them regret it for years.  One of the more well known cases of this being Justice David Souter who was appointed by the first President Bush in 1990 only to be a solid liberal minded Justice for the next 29 years.

But he is far from the only one.

President Reagan appointed Fedearl Judge Richard Posner who apparently hates tradition, stating “How can tradition be a reason for anything?”


It would seem that Posner’s contempt for tradition extends to all things sexual, up to and including the puritanical presupposition that it’s always wrong for a man to rape a woman. 

Posner’s suggestion? Perhaps it’s time the government begin issuing “rape licenses” (I kid you not) since, and based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the “right to rape,” for some men at least, “exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain.”

By all means read more of this fascinating article here: Federal Judge Envisions ‘Rape License’ for ‘Right to Rape’


So what’s the point of it all?

The Constitution and the rights enumerated therein are absolute…the courts and those who rule on them are not.

For Example:

Another Judge Fails the 2nd Amendment – Upholds Rifle Ban

Supreme Court’s Inaction Fails Gun Owners Again

Another Activist Judge, Another Double Standard Stickin It To The 2nd Amendment

The best we can do is to elect people who will appoint the best people for the job and hope.  Because I can all but guarantee that people like Obama, Schumer and Blumenthal are NOT letting some hidden Libertarian minded gun rights judge anywhere NEAR a federal bench.

But even the Republican party can appoint duds.

So vote for the candidate who you hope will appoint the best person to protect your rights…

but keep your powder dry 😉


  • “…Because this is a “right” codified by the United States Constitutional Republic and thereby brought under its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Republic can divest its citizens of this right – something it has been doing incrementally for some time. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., the Supreme Court decided, five to four, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and bear firearms. Although gun owners hailed Heller a victory, this battle (which is far from over) concerning the constitutional right to bear arms has diverted our attention from the larger and more consequential battle.

    “Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise. Many Americans who celebrated Heller overlooked the fact that it can – and likely will – be overturned by a future court, just as its decision overturned United States v. Miller,
    307 U.S. 174, rendered in 1939. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings….”

    For more, see online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

  • whap888

    NO state has the right to create a law that infringes on those rights that are
    protected by the Constitution. Conceal Carry permits, background checks, permits
    to buy weapons are all unconstitutional. No state law can be repugnant to the Constitution!
    Might I be so bold as to correct your miss-perception of where The
    Law actually comes from? The US Constitution derives its authority from “the
    consent of the governed”. When enough of the people no longer give that consent
    then the Constitution looses authority, a situation we are seeing unfold before
    our eyes. Where do the people derive their authority? From the inalienable and
    unalienable rights given by God. the Creator and Preserver of the Universe. The
    remedy for all such injustices is for the people to revoke their permission for
    their representatives and agents, in the form of government officials from
    perpetrating these acts. You want
    laws? How about a Constitutional Amendment that ~requires~
    the charging and prosecution of any government agent upon written affidavit and
    complaint of any 3 Citizens for any transgression of the Constitution or the
    statutory and regulatory law that derives from it.

  • petroskhan

    I think that any time a judge (at whatever level) makes a decision that is against the Constitution, the defendant should immediately sue the judge for violation of his Constitutional rights.

    In a civil case, you only need to show damage, and you only need a majority of the jurors to decide. How hard could it be, if you just stick to the Constitution, and make that the basis of your claim? With the way things are going, you should win pretty big, as people are getting more and more frustrated.

  • luvsgunsandamerica

    We need a Constitutional Amendment to have a recall process for all appointed and also elected officials who go against the Constitution .We also need to include all present seated traitors.

  • Pingback: Why Believers In The 2nd Amendment Can't Depend...()

Send this to friend