Still doesn't tell me how the 4 liberal justices have "subverted" the constitution?? Exactly what changes have they made to it?? They lost on Heller and McDonald. How have either of those cases weakened 2A or our ability to own and carry firearms?? How have "fab-four" lessened my ability to defend myself and my home??
You (and others) are missing the forest because of all the trees that're in the way. SCOTUS can't create or modify laws (or The Constitution for that matter). They can only strike down a law if they decide it's unconstitutional. It's local lawmakers that enacted the draconian firearm laws in Heller and McDonald, not the SC. The SC absolutely 100% can not enact a law. They can only react to what's presented to them. At worst they can only refuse to strike down a law that some believe is unconstitutional, laws that are put forth by and enacted by your state or federal congressmen (or in some cases a city council).
Apparently the majority of voters in Chicago, DC, NYC, and other places like highly restrictive gun laws....that why they keep re-electing the lawmakers who create those restrictions. That's their problem, not mine. The front line of the battle for 2A rights is at the state and local level, not SCOTUS who're powerless to take away our rights.
The liberal justices in the ninth district federal court are liberal appointees. They have decided that the second amendment doesn't give anyone the right to "carry" a gun. As a result you can be denied the right to carry any gun, anywhere. They've subverted the constitution. Now the SCOTUS only ruled in favor of Heller and McDonald because five justices could override the other four. If the swing vote was a liberal, Washington D.C. would have prevailed and the right to deny ownership of a usable gun would have been upheld. Should one of those five justices have a heart attack the next appointee may swing with the four libtards on the interpretation of the second. No, they cannot change the wording of the second amendment. That requires Congressional approval and probably won't happen. But they can re-interpret it as to apply only to a state ggovernment. This now means you have no right to own a gun... only the state has the right in raising a militia. This presently requires nothing more than a single justice's swing vote.
I'm not missing anything here. I'm very well schooled in constitutional law. This is called legislating from the bench. No they can't make or change a law but they can re-interpret a constitutional provision on nothing more than a whim. THAT renders the constitution to irrelevence.
In my opinion abortion is murder. But in Roe v. Wade nine justices had to decide the point at which life began. Murder is illegal. But not when they interpret the law to say that life hasn't yet begun at conception and therefor it's not murder. I happen to think life begins at conception. They don't. What I think doesn't matter. What Congress thinks doesn't matter. What the president thinks doesn't matter. None have a say in the issue. If Cpongress tries to make a law saying abortion is legal they are barred by the SCOTUS decision. Unless the SCOTUS changes its interpretation of when life begins it's a dead issue. Five libtards could reverse what the court ruled defines the second amendment and no one in Congress, nor even the president can stop it.
It never maters what we or Congress thinks. The most powerful people in America are not the president or congress. They're the justices of the supreme court. All law, without exception, is based on interpretation. thus caselaw is used to deny motions for mistrial, summary judgement or dismissal thousands of times per day in America. The findings of a higher court prevail and the judge has no choice but to apply the case precedent. The big question becomes, "what happends when the next appointee is caitlin Halligan... the former NYS anti-gun solicitor that spearheaded the attack on gun manufacturers for Andrew Cuomo? Should Congress lose its GOP majority she's a shoe-in. The balance is now five anti-gunners against four pro-guners. there are presently numerous cases on track for the SCOTUS. This is a game changter. n one is changing a law. They're just re-interpreting an exisitng ruling that says you have no right to bear arms... only the state militia does. Why is that not subverting the constitution. They didn't change it, They needed no vote from Congress. they merely re-interpret it. This has happended many times throughout American history. The end justifies the means. obama gets his wish and Congress is powerless.
I strongly recommend everyone subscribe to America's First Freedom which contains explanations from renouned constitutional scholars on exactly how this happends. Obama is a very slick individual. he knows he can't win by conventional means so he uses the cracks in our system of government to acheive his means. i really suggest reading this publication at the NRA/ILA. We're much closer than most people think.
Sorry, my spelling is horrible in this post. B2TALL, keep thinking positive on this one as I'm with you. I hope someday we can keep these judges from doing this. There needs to be some protections for us. I personally believe, as you do, that "bear" arms should mean "carry" arms. One good thing is that states rights still prevail and most states have enacted provisions to allow us to exercise our rights. But nothing surprises me when it comes to the libtards.
