Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan

[livingston]

Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan
Defenders of the Second Amendment often use federal lawsuits in an attempt to protect their right to keep and bear arms.

This is a really bad strategy.


At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.

Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldn’t count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.

If you needed proof of this, I direct your attention to the most recent opinion on the Second Amendment handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. As NBC put it, in a 7-4 decision, the federal panel held that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm.

“The protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.c...ges-to-protect-your-gun-rights-is-a-bad-plan/

 

[Airborneguy]

What’s the alternative? Killing?

 

[Jezman]

Really then what do we do?

 

[Steal2B]

 

[M_F]

Do not comply, at your own risk of course.

 

[spat]

What’s the alternative? Killing?

You vote, and you litigate, but when all that fails, ultimately you have to decide "when you hand over your guns, will it be bullets first ?"


And of course, the key for the gun grabbers is to keep people hopeful for a legal solution as long as possible. So that they can grab as much as possible before the shooting starts.

 

[Podmonkey]

Depending on any government official or representative is a bad idea. Our Right to Bear Arms does not come from the government.

 

[Toecutter]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government