Black Robes Matter!

Via Liberty Park Press, Black Robes Matter! Do You Care About Your Gun Rights?

It is estimated that President Trump will appoint 38% of all judges on the federal bench.

It’s not just the U.S. Supreme Court we have to worry about. Remember that the Miller decision said:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

This was interpreted by lower courts to mean that unless the individual had some reasonable relationship to “a well regulated militia” that the individual was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. But that’s not what the above passage says. It says the 2nd Amendment cannot be said to guarantee the right to keep and bear the instrument, the shotgun, or weapon. And this is because the 2nd Amendment only protects weapons that are part of ordinary military equipment or that could contribute to the common defense. Hence the military M-16 and AK-47s are protected by the 2nd Amendment but the 30-30 hunting rifle is not.

The lower courts are extremely important as well. And if SAF is correct in saying:

President Donald Trump’s first round of federal court nominees “looks very promising,” and provides strong evidence that the president is determined to fulfill one of his most important campaign pledges, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

SAF has launched the Judicial Accountability Project to help vet the nominees.

Black Robes Matter!

6 thoughts on “Black Robes Matter!

  1. All good points. We do of course retain our rights, they having been endowed by our Creator, regardless what any government type says. They don’t give us our rights, they can’t take them away. They can either respect them or make criminals of themselves by disrespecting them.

    And even the Miller interpretation was wrong. The type of arms are not mentioned in the second amendment, only the militia clause as being necessary to the security of a free state. It is a stretch (a trick) to claim that the prefatory or explanatory clause limits “the right” in any way.

    Further; the fact that any political type would want to ban a certain class of personal weapon should be taken as conclusive proof that it is considered by them to be effective as an instrument of self defense or defense of community and country (for there is no other reason to ban it) and it is therefore protected. Q.E.D.

  2. One *might* go so far as to say that a type of personal weapon, such as a single shot 22 pistol, is of such limited use in self defense that it should be banned in favor of more effective weapons (like banning low capacity magazines in favor of higher capacity ones), but even that is a stretch, given that a single shot 22 pistol or etc. is better than nothing. Knives, spears, bows and other short range weapons are also “arms” and thus are protected. One could also argue, with merit, that transport and support vehicles, communication devices, et al, are protected under the second amendment as being necessary to organized defense, thus falling under the category of “arms”.

    That brings up some interesting questions regarding our government’s current, wide-scale surveillance and data collection systems too.

    • So encryption is protected by the 2nd Amendment? Makes sense to me. (By the 1st, also, of course.)
      Neil Smith made the argument (in “Down with Power”) that Constitutional protection of rights includes forbidding taxation of those rights, or the items used for exercising them. So taxes on guns & ammo should be considered unconstitutional, as would taxes on telephones and the Internet.

  3. If life is worth protecting, then surely it should be protected with the best means available, for to limits the means is to risk the life.

  4. Hence the military M-16 and AK-47s are protected by the 2nd Amendment but the 30-30 hunting rifle is not.

    You _really_ need to rethink that. Possession of a rifle (or any other arm) or a particular design does not “lose” its protection just because somebody designed a “better” weapon in the “same” class of weapons.

  5. Pingback: Black Robes Matter! - The Gun Feed

Comments are closed.