Quote of the day—William Melhado

Perez-Gallan had a restraining order issued against him, in which case federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm.

Counts ruled that the federal government’s disarming of Perez-Gallan did not sufficiently consider the historical context of domestic abuse law when revoking his Second Amendment rights. In September, the same judge ruled that it’s unconstitutional to disarm somebody who has been indicted but hasn’t been convicted yet.

William Melhado
November 14, 2022
Federal judge in Texas rules that disarming those under protective orders violates their Second Amendment rights

It is long past time which the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms was recognized as a first class right instead of an embarrassing dog turd on the bottom of someone’s shoe.

I would think there are some due process issues involved as well.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—William Melhado

  1. The two words relevant to the analysis of a Constitutional right or some other limitation on government power are “Prior Restraint”. Leftists hold it almost as a holy dogma for the First Amendment protections of speech and press. Other rights, not so much.
    If any right required the application of the ban against prior restraint, it would be the right that prohibits infringement.

  2. As well it should be. There is no second amendment right for Mr. Gallan. It’s a second amendment prohibition of government infringement on a right.
    It may seem like legal hair splitting. But it is a distinction the communists have been pushing on us for years.
    That government has the authority to manipulate rights. Because of their position of power. They don’t. Just as emergencies don’t suspend the constitution. But you would have a hard time explaining that one to congress.
    The whole restraining order scheme was major BS from its inception. And thankfully there is still someone in government that understands that.

    • You should see the vacant stares when you try to explain that the government has no rights, only powers, to some people.

      You can almost get their brains to run out their ears when you go on to explain that those powers belong to the people and have merely been loaned to the government.

      The very idea that the government be allowed to do something and forbid a citizen from it would have been repugnant to the founders.

      Yet, here we are.

      • Very good! And I would go as far as to posit that government has no power. Only duties imposed on it by reason of the constitution.
        Power is always in the hands of the people. Just because they have not exercised it in a large and loud manner for 240 years matters little. And changes nothing.

    • I remember being fascinated when Neil Smith made that point years ago, and mentioned that the Bill of Rights is misnamed and should be called the Bill of Prohibitions.

      One reason it’s not legal hair splitting was pointed out by Neil: if you recognize that those amendments prohibit government actions, questions like “at what age does the 1st Amendment start to apply” can be recognized as nonsensical. And that matters, because the bad guys have long pretended that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to “children” and therefore government schools are free to censor, spy on, and otherwise maltreat young citizens.

  3. The government frequently infringes on rights…not just 2A rights.;..without bothering to obtain a conviction of any kind. Like…who is going to stop them?
    “Red Flag” laws are just one of many such abuses of authority.

Comments are closed.