They don’t lack understanding … they merely don’t care about breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution when stacked against the opportunity to vindicate their emotions and political views.
Michael V. Pelletier
February 22, 2017
Comment to 4th Circuit Issues Devastating Opinion Regarding “Assault Rifles”
[This was regarding the judges who found the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect ownership of modern sporting rifles.—Joe]
His statement can be applied to every Federal political elected or appointed official. The painful reality is that obedience to the Constitution is non-existent.
paul: you are spot on. nuff said. and, oh, yeah, that’s why we loathe and detest them. simply put.
OTOH, it’s a great opportunity to make the smack-down on their un-con law national instead of only 4th circuit wide. That way we don’t have to fight the same silliness in CA, too.
Sure you will. Don’t think that CA will behave itself just because the Supreme Court says they are supposed to. Otherwise this issue wouldn’t have come up in Maryland, either.
Impeachment, removal from office, and jail for felony perjury are the right answer.
If we change that wording only slightly, and only so as to make it less specific to judges;
“They don’t lack understanding … they merely don’t care about breaking social taboos or laws when stacked against the opportunity to vindicate their emotions and satisfy their material wants” then we arrive at a good, general definition of a criminal.
friends:
as per the habits of leftist twits, they have it precisely bass akwards.–
it is precisely weapons such as the mini-14 and the ar-15 that the second amendment protects as inviolate in the hands of the people, the better to resist the tyranny of government and faction. if you are gonna oppose government, you don’t want to be outgunned. simple as that.
john jay
p.s. and, yes my reasoning applies to machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers and fighter jets. i always wanted my very own a-10 warthog: fully loaded.
Yes!!!! So glad I’m not the only one coveting a jet, with missiles!
Justice Kozinski’s dissent in another case – partially quoted below – lays out the ‘why’: Many of TPTB simply don’t like the idea of ‘serious’ armament in the hands of the people. And the ‘how’: They will gleefully swallow whatever camel is handy to pretzel logic their way around any perceived problems.
“Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet…and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths….When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text.
But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.”
Pingback: Quote of the day—Michael V. Pelletier | Gunpon
Miller was not, as I recall, overruled by Heller. What gives?
They ignore what does not fit the narrative.
Right. If these are indeed “military type” weapons, then by the Miller precedent they are particularly protected.