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

A Sobering Look At Recent SCOTUS “Wins” For The 2nd Amendment

For those who following the happenings of the 2nd Amendment on the judicial level you are no doubt aware of recent cases since 2000 that have ostensibly empowered the right to keep and bear arms.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that those cases are the be all end all that they could have been.

Alan Gura, the lead litigator who won both Heller v DC and MacDonald v Chicago poured some water on the notion that those were as big of victories as first believed.

A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

Optional precedents.  It’s disheartening to realize that Gura is exactly right.  Since both of those cases, the appellate courts have gone out of their ways to diminish their import and to work around them in order to try and legally justify gun control where it shouldn’t be allowed to exist.

Gura also points out that “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

In this too, he is correct.  During both of the aforementioned cases, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court had the ability to lay the smack down and finally encase the 2nd Amendment with the precedent of “shall not infringe.”  For some reason, it seems that the government needs to be smacked upside the head with that “shall not infringe” part again because that is all they seem to be doing for the past century and a half or so.

But no, the conservatives on the bench left enough wiggle room, enough exceptions and enough gray area in both of those cases that lower courts and legislators can continually undermine the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.  And while governments have millions to defend their unconstitutional laws.  John Q Patriot doesn’t have an endless war chest to fund long running litigation.

So yes, until there are enough liberty minded justices on the Supreme Court to state the the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed AT ALL, we continue the fight for our freedom.

Now, in regards to this upcoming election, Trump might be a toss up when it comes to nominating judges, but I know for a fact that a Hillary Presidency will do all in its power to strike the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

Food for thought.  Heller and MacDonald wasn’t the end…hell it wasn’t even the beginning.  The fight is just starting.  Keep your powder dry.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend