You come here with half truths and total bullshit. It figures. Most people went to school and heard all that rubbish. The
facts are that what is on paper is NOT how things work out in real life.
Yes, the United States Supreme Court does make new law. It's unconstitutional, but let me take your smart ass through the
facts:
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court
ruled:
"
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State"
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
A few years later, another court ruling:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
The
United States Supreme Court weighed in:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )
So, wait a minute. The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it is not granted by the Constitution? So says the United States Supreme Court. That means, as the Texas ruling went, the Right is
absolute. If the government does not grant a Right, but that Right exists then it must be an absolute Right. Yet how many stupid people are running around telling us that no Right is absolute? May we examine the facts once again?
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams
“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain
inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”
--
George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356
Seems the founding fathers and the early courts had a different view than the United States Supreme Court because the United States Supreme Court overruled the founding fathers, all the legislatures (state and federal) AND overruled their own standing precedent. Read it carefully:
"
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008)
That ruling overruled the founding fathers, the laws of our country, and even standing precedents by earlier U.S. Supreme Court holdings.
Where in the HELL have your almighty federal legislators been for the last decade? In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court subtly tries to tell the American people that they are in the Rights granting business. They claim there are no absolute rights when I can cite you
THOUSANDS of court cases, quotes from our founders, and statutes to the contrary. Even the Bill of Rights is a
limitation on government, not a limitation on the people!
When, in your lifetime, has the legislative department overruled the United States Supreme Court and told them they are NOT in the Rights granting business?
