9th ‘short’ circuit court: The glass is half full…kinda
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals personifies the Metcalf bromide. “Some people just don’t want to be confused with FACTS that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices….” And so once again THE most overturned court in the land cranks out a 72-page ruling stating the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia.
In 1943 Supreme Court Justice Jackson wrote, the very purpose of a Bill of Rights, “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” The 9th Circuit disagrees.
In the wake of the latest 9th Circuit robed bozos revisionist interpretations I have been flooded with a collective of screams and gnashing of teeth (most of which is inappropriate to print).
However, I remain less daunted than most of my Second Amendment defending brethren.
The 5th Circuit ruling (which has become known as the Emerson decision) UPHOLDS an individual’s right to possess a weapon.
Liberal left icon and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe had an epiphany and begrudgingly admits he had been wrong (a commendable thing for him to do). Tribe has recognized that the Second Amendment DOES acknowledge an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
The LANGUAGE, syntax and content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cannot/should not be ignored. “The People” really does mean “the people” and despite Clintonesque parsing of new politically correct interpretation and definition of words “is” means “is” and “the people” means “the people”. “Shall not” does not mean “maybe, sometimes, or it depends”.
There is a significant opportunity for potential unintended consequences to drive a final nail in the gun control wackos coffin.
For YEARS, many of us fighting the gun control jihad have been begging for the United States Supreme Court to rule on the question of individual versus collective rights. Despite the protestations and rhetoric of the liberal left, the facts (as even Laurence Tribe recognized) do not support their moist dream.
The 9th Circuit myopia may well compel the Supremes to do what they have successfully avoided for decades.
The 9th Circuit IS the most overturned court in the country. Those bay area limousine liberals maintain their politically correct heads SO far in rectal defilade it would require major surgery to extricate them.
So NOW we have two Circuit Courts with rulings that are diametrically opposite. Hey, how are the poor huddled masses supposed to decide which court is right and which is wrong? They can’t both be right!
Well, THIS boys and girls is the classic opportunity (if not requirement) for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.
The judicial activism of the 9th Circuit is consistent with what the gun grabbers have been telling us all along.
Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. said, “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”
M. Gartner, then President of NBC News, told USA – Today, “I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.”
First Amendment law professor at UCLA School of Law Eugene Volokh wrote an excellent piece in National Review on this controversy.
However scholarly refutation of p.c. posturing notwithstanding the reality is the 9th Circuit ruling is taking a knife to a gunfight. Beyond the factual and constitutional flaws of their ruling it invites massive non-compliance that would rival the Volstead Act.
We are at war. Terrorists have pledged to assault our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and yet robed sycophants conspire to provide the enemy unarmed victims. “We have met the enemy and he is US.”
If the Supremes prove malfeasant the result will be massive non-compliance and an increase in the shadow class of law-abiding criminals.