The Phaserl


Dangerous Disorder in the Courts Regarding the Second

by Jeff Knox, Ammoland:

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has once again come down with a shameful ruling based on selective interpretation of the Supreme Court’s narrow rulings in Heller and McDonald, the landmark Second Amendment cases decided in 2008 and 2010.

In this latest abomination from the courts, the three-judge panel concluded that New York and Connecticut’s laws banning virtually all semi-auto rifles as “assault weapons” and all “high-capacity” magazines, do indeed “burden” and infringe on citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment, but they go on to conclude that the states’ “compelling governmental interest in public safety and crime prevention” carry greater weight than individuals’ rights to self-defense – in spite of the fact that “assault weapons” are rarely used in crime, when they are, it is unusual for more than a few shots to be fired, and laws restricting them and “high-capacity” magazines have proven useless in practical application.

Conspicuously missing from the court’s reasoning was any reference to the militia or to the previous, primary Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, US v. Miller.

The Second Amendment is composed of two clauses, the prefatory clause; “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” and the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In Miller, the Court commented that this militia relationship had to be considered in any judgement regarding the right to arms. They went on to conclude that, since they weren’t aware of a short-barreled shotgun being a normal part of militia equipment, that such an arm was not protected under the Second Amendment.

For almost 60 years after the 1939 Miller decision, lower courts misused the “militia” comment to mean that the right to arms only applied to people actively enrolled in a government-sanctioned militia. Had that been the Justices intent, Miller’s claim would have been rejected because he was not a militia member. Instead, his claim was rejected because his gun, a sawed-off shotgun, was not recognized as a common militia weapon.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

2 comments to Dangerous Disorder in the Courts Regarding the Second

  • Lmo

    Look guys, I will keep it simple for you.

    Satan is NOT going to stop doing evil. he does not care about a Constitution or a court order nor does he give a rats@$$ about the least of the God given inalienable rights that you have.

    The ONE single thing that he fears, the ONLY thing that keeps him at a distance, is “the mark” and the Name that has the authority over him.

    Ezekiel 9:4

    4 “…and the Lord said to him, “Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it.”

    5 To the others He said in my hearing, “Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. 6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

  • Ed_B

    Once again, people, “gun control” is NOT about guns. It IS about control of We the People. This ruling is asinine on its face. There is NO data that shows ANY relationship between the number of guns or the size of their magazines, and any crime… well, other than the fact that as legal gun ownership rises in any particular area, crime falls in that area, that is. If this was about crime, data of this kind would pretty much be the last word on this issue. That it isn’t is all the proof we need that it is about controlling We the People. If We the People stand for this, we deserve what happens once we are all disarmed. There ARE issues in this world that are worth fighting and dying for, if necessary. IMO, this IS one of them.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>