Monday, June 15, 2020

The Supreme Court Won't Protect Your 2nd Amendment Rights

Ten gun rights cases were ignored to be heard by the Supreme Court which essentially allows conflicted lower courts to determine what it means to enforce the Second Amendment in various States.

At the same time, the concept of "original intent" is completely obliterated as a 1964 law is reinterpreted to include transgenderism which did not exist at its conception.

I am reminded about how terms like "domestic abuse" and "emotional abuse" (fake words that didn't exist until the 1970s) were somehow intended by Apostle Paul 2,000 years prior.

While living in California, forums like and the libertarian world would declare how the Supreme Court would save them from their State Legislators. Heller was mentioned as well as "precedence" that will help them win their cases.

I remember the hype that Trump would get to elect the most conservative Supreme Court ever and all the wrongs of the liberals would be undone.

That didn't happen today.

So, whatever "check" was hallucinated to be some control against Government tyranny, has hopefully been squashed. Organizations like the NRA-ILA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation have pretty much been wiped out.

I suppose they can keep on hoping that if they keep pressing these kinds of cases that the Supreme Court will eventually hear their cases and make a binding determination binding to all the land?

How many Californians, New Jersey, New York, and other State residents with overly restrictive gun laws will be willing to help fund these organizations when the "most conservative" Supreme Court just refused to even hear their case?

They're left to fight on their own. But, that's a losing battle in demographics and democracy.

In face of the current violent protests happening in the major cities, it seems a politically wise decision. Deciding either way would piss off a huge section of the population in either direction. They are not forcing the issue on any unwilling State, but allowing each State to decide on its own.

What's left are the populace of the States who feel their 2nd Amendment rights have been infringed upon. Unfortunately, if charged criminally in violation of their State's gun laws, they will not have a Supreme Court to appeal to. So they are left only to comply, fight a bloody war, or simply move to a different State.

It's what I tell myself as well.

I'm ex-military with a license to carry handguns from Utah and Florida which means 32 of the 50 states. At some point, I was licensed to carry in California as well. Puerto Rico, unfortunately, restricts me as well, though they have recently changed their laws to make it much easier for all citizens to carry (it's included with the regular firearms license.).

But I tell myself, if I had a problem with it, I can just move to Florida.

Do I really want to die for my gun rights in Puerto Rico when I could just move to Florida if I actually cared enough?

I think that will be most people's thinking.

But at least now, residents in the gun restrictive States can have no illusion that their gun rights are protected by the "2nd Amendment" and now State Politicians should be more emboldened to place even stricter restrictions.

After all, what's the worst that could happen? It's not like there's a chance their case will be heard at the Supreme Court.

1 comment:

  1. At the rate the rule of law is being flouted, at some point in the near future it won't matter what they legislate, it will be damned near unenforceable, consent of the governed and all that mess. It will become a case of "it's only illegal if you get caught."