Supreme Court effectively removes 2nd Amendment from Constitution US v. ZACKEY RAHIMI

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See: Supreme Court upholds federal ban on guns for domestic abusers
.
Also see:
.
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI
.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Well, to answer ROBERTS question, we must first discover why the Second Amendment was adopted, and to factually answer that question we need to review the pertinent historical evidence as to why the Second Amendment, along with nine other amendments, were presented to the States for their approval. And where do we find the evidence? We find it in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 which confirms its intent is to preserve federalism, our constitution’s plan.

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.


So, the very purpose of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the newly created federal government from entering the states and exercising its powers within the various state borders, and preserving federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Additional evidence confirming this fact is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and acknowledging their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the following Supreme Court Justices took it upon themselves to do for the people what the States and people therein, intentionally prohibited when adding the Second Amendment to the Constitution: ROBERTS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON

In addition to removing the Second Amendment from the Constitution, the above Justices also shredded the Tenth Amendment which was aptly summarized by Madison in Federalist Number 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Finally, let us recall a warning found in “The Old Guard”, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787, published in pamphlet form in 1862:

"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin."

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

So much for the ‘historical analogue’ test.

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy; in a ruling inconsistent with Bruen, the Court’s conservatives demonstrate their cowardice and issued a decision based on politics, not the law.

The concept of ‘domestic abuse’ against women didn’t exist during the Foundation Era – a law prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms should have been invalidated accordingly.

Eviscerating the legitimacy of the ‘historical analogue’ test, however, the Court’s conservatives chose political expediency over precedent, fearful of a backlash had they ruled otherwise, endangering the lives of women.

Unfortunately, the Court’s conservative majority failed to consider endangering the health and lives of women before overturning Roe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm asking where in our federal Constitution has our federal government been granted power to enact and enforce the law referenced by the Supreme Court.

I guess you can't answer the question.

It is a stupid, ignorant question and completely misses the point.

The Court’s conservatives made the right decision for the wrong reason – fear of political backlash had they ruled otherwise.

And the decision demonstrates the idiocy of the ‘historical analogue’ test, a bad faith doctrine demonstrating the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative dogma – ‘originalism’ in particular.

Indeed, the conservative justices twisted themselves into pretzels in failed, pathetic attempts to justify their ruling consistent with ‘originalism.’

Now, moving forward with future Second Amendment cases, the legitimacy of the ‘historical analogue’ test is forever undermined, with gun laws being invalidated or upheld for political reasons, not the legal precedent this very Court established in Bruen.

 

[johnwk]

It is a stupid, ignorant question and completely misses the point.

According to you, who embraces the shredding of our Constitution when it appeases your personal predilections. But it is not a stupid question to those who support and defend the text of our Constitution and adhering to the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to which gives context to its text.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[SaxonJackson]

A person with a history of violent abuse should NOT be allowed to be anywhere near a firearm. Your premis that the 2nd. Amendment is somehow removed is BIG FUCKING LIE!! NO...big time fucking NO!!! Do you fully and completely understand how allowing a person with of violence agaisnt their partner and/or children could lead that partner and/or children being killed by a firearm? That is receipe for murder plain and simple.

I know as full fledged card carrying Gun Nut like you would understand that.

Using your idiotic logic would suggest that a person with a "history of violence" shouldn't be anywyere near the following:

Kitchen knives
U-Haul pickup trucks
Pressure cookers
Fertilizer
Rope
Electric cords
Rat poison
Heavy rocks
Chain
Red SUVs
Machetes

Quit being stupid.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

This is the smartest ruling the Supreme Court has made in a long time. It's ironic how the people who worship the Constitution so much, gets angry whenever someone else interprets it different than they do.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

The next thing the Supreme Court needs to do is:
1) Make it illegal for citizens to make/own ghost guns.
2) Make all semi-automatic weapons illegal to purchase.
3) Make 21 yrs old the legal age to purchase any gun.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The next thing the Supreme Court needs to do is:
1) Make it illegal for citizens to make/own ghost guns.
2) Make all semi-automatic weapons illegal to purchase.
3) Make 21 yrs old the legal age to purchase any gun.

You shouldn't opine about things you are ignorant about. If all semi-automatic weapons were illegal to purchase, no one could purchase any revolver of a more recent design than 1870 when double action revolvers became popular. It would still allow lever and pump action magazine fed rifles to be legal.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

You shouldn't opine about things you are ignorant about. If all semi-automatic weapons were illegal to purchase, no one could purchase any revolver of a more recent design than 1870 when double action revolvers became popular. It would still allow lever and pump action magazine fed rifles to be legal.

 

[Foxfyre]

See: Supreme Court upholds federal ban on guns for domestic abusers
.
Also see:
.
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI
.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Well, to answer ROBERTS question, we must first discover why the Second Amendment was adopted, and to factually answer that question we need to review the pertinent historical evidence as to why the Second Amendment, along with nine other amendments, were presented to the States for their approval. And where do we find the evidence? We find it in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 which confirms its intent is to preserve federalism, our constitution’s plan.

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.


So, the very purpose of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the newly created federal government from entering the states and exercising its powers within the various state borders, and preserving federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Additional evidence confirming this fact is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and acknowledging their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the following Supreme Court Justices took it upon themselves to do for the people what the States and people therein, intentionally prohibited when adding the Second Amendment to the Constitution: ROBERTS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON

In addition to removing the Second Amendment from the Constitution, the above Justices also shredded the Tenth Amendment which was aptly summarized by Madison in Federalist Number 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Finally, let us recall a warning found in “The Old Guard”, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787, published in pamphlet form in 1862:

"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin."

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

I have a close relative who along with her teenage daughter were physically threatened with death by hand gun held by her then husband. The police confiscated the gun in lieu of jailing the husband and the judge who then ordered a restraining order did so on the condition the guy not have a gun in his possession. Otherwise he would be sentenced to jail for assault with a deadly weapon.

I cannot fault the police or judge in this case. I am about as strong a 2nd Amendment person as you will find anywhere, but I am also a very strong promoting the general welfare person. I see nothing that promotes the general welfare by taking guns away from law abiding citizens. But I can see that some people--very few actually--who should not be allowed to have guns for the good of themselves, their families, their community.

Good policy always has to include common sense.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

^^^^ Yes, that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So much for the ‘historical analogue’ test.

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy; in a ruling inconsistent with Bruen, the Court’s conservatives demonstrate their cowardice and issued a decision based on politics, not the law.

The concept of ‘domestic abuse’ against women didn’t exist during the Foundation Era – a law prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms should have been invalidated accordingly.

Eviscerating the legitimacy of the ‘historical analogue’ test, however, the Court’s conservatives chose political expediency over precedent, fearful of a backlash had they ruled otherwise, endangering the lives of women.

Unfortunately, the Court’s conservative majority failed to consider endangering the health and lives of women before overturning Roe.

One of these days, you will post something that;s true.
Today is not that day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The next thing the Supreme Court needs to do is:
1) Make it illegal for citizens to make/own ghost guns.
2) Make all semi-automatic weapons illegal to purchase.
3) Make 21 yrs old the legal age to purchase any gun.

You cannot demonstrate a need for any of these things/
You have, however, demonstrated your ignorance as to how the legal system works.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is the smartest ruling the Supreme Court has made in a long time.

Good to see you support the Bruen decision

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is a stupid, ignorant question and completely misses the point.

The Court’s conservatives made the right decision for the wrong reason – fear of political backlash had they ruled otherwise.

And the decision demonstrates the idiocy of the ‘historical analogue’ test, a bad faith doctrine demonstrating the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative dogma – ‘originalism’ in particular.

Indeed, the conservative justices twisted themselves into pretzels in failed, pathetic attempts to justify their ruling consistent with ‘originalism.’

Now, moving forward with future Second Amendment cases, the legitimacy of the ‘historical analogue’ test is forever undermined, with gun laws being invalidated or upheld for political reasons, not the legal precedent this very Court established in Bruen.

Tomorrow doesn't look any better.