|
nChrist
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2017, 05:14:43 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 6-27-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
San Diego County Sheriff William Gore defended California’s egregious gun law last year and in an LA Times op-ed defined “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.”
Quite a flawed definition.
Who decides what circumstances distinguish one applicant from another? And what might those circumstances be? Where one lives? What profession an individual has? Would being robbed, raped, assaulted, shot at, or threatened previously be good cause to be able to apply for a conceal carry permit? Why on earth do the Ninth Circuit, Sheriff Gore and others think someone must prove that they have “good cause” to lawfully exercise a right found in the plain language of the United States Constitution?
Hence why we have the Supreme Court to step in when such violations of Liberty arise. Except that the High Court declined to step in and hear the case — which means that, for now, the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, infringing on the constitutional rights of Californians and others.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the only two justices who voted to hear the case, and the pair blasted their fellow justices for refusing to do so. In fact, they took the unusual step of writing a dissenting opinion despite no hearing.
Justice Thomas had this to say30: “The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.” Thomas continued, “Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.”
Indeed, it has, especially since so many lower federal courts have reached different conclusions on the Second Amendment and where and to whom it applies.
Thomas added to his dissent, “This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to ‘bear arms’ means to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” He further noted, “I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”
Worse, Thomas argued, is that the Court has declined numerous Second Amendment cases in recent years. “The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” Thomas wrote. “The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years — since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
Gun grabbers of all stripes are ecstatic that SCOTUS did not hear this case. However, yesterday’s decision should be a stark reminder that Liberty is still under attack by those who wish to control every aspect of citizens’ lives. This battle in California has been lost, at least for now. But there are numerous victories being won for gun rights around the country, and it could be that the Court revisits this case or another like it at some point. Keep your powder dry.
MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST
SCOTUS Upholds Trump’s Ban, So What of California’s?31 — A helpful comparison of a ban for the purposes of national security and one for the purposes of discrimination.
SCOTUS to Rule on First Amendment Cake Baker’s Case32 — After years of putting it off the Supreme Court will finally rule on the legality of anti-discrimination laws vs. religious liberty.
On National Security, Is America Its Own Worst Enemy?33 — Leakers are becoming an increasingly problematic “feature” of the U.S. intelligence community.
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
Ryan Anderson: Supreme Court to Review Case of Christian Baker34
Stephen Moore: The Banana Republic of Illinois35
Cal Thomas: Unhealthy Acts36
For more, visit Right Opinion37.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Stephen Moore: “According to the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, Illinois’ pension payments are the major contributor to spending growth. Following the recent credit downgrade, Moody’s Investors Service cited the state’s overwhelming pension debt level as a contributor to the poor credit rating and negative outlook. In November, the state reported having $130 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, but Moody’s calculates that level of pension debt as twice as high, or $251 billion. A recent Hoover Institution analysis estimates Illinois’ pension funding ratio to be 29 percent, the lowest level in the United States. According to Donna Arduin, a former budget advisor to Gov. Rauner, if the pensions aren’t curtailed, as much as one in four tax dollars in the state will soon not go to schools, roads, health care, or police and fire but to pension payments to retired employees — many of whom no longer live in the state. … So what is the lesson for the rest of America? Soak-the-rich economics almost never works. As tax receipts keep sinking in Illinois, the safety net is tattered; the roads are in disrepair; crime is out of control in Chicago; and the state is home to some of the worst schools in the nation. When you try to soak the rich, they leave; the state goes bankrupt; and it’s the middle class that gets all wet. How’s that for tax fairness?”
SHORT CUTS
Insight: “There is no such thing as an achieved liberty: like electricity, there can be no substantial storage and it must be generated as it is enjoyed, or the lights go out.” —Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954)
Upright: “Acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail ‘discriminating’ on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with ‘discrimination.’ This overbroad definition of ‘discrimination’ is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech.” —Ryan T. Anderson
For the record: “The essence of obstruction is to frustrate the search for truth. Its antithesis is to demand the exposure of fraud. Donald Trump’s political enemies are trying to build an obstruction case on the antithesis of obstruction: the president’s insistence that the collusion fraud be exposed.” —Andrew McCarthy
Non Compos Mentis: “This [Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act] is supported, I am sure, by ISIS.” —Manhattan DA Cy Vance
The BIG Lie: “We do know that many more people, hundreds of thousands of people, will die if this [GOP health care] bill passes.” —Nancy Pelosi
Demo-gogues: “The Affordable Care Act has problems — deductibles are too high, copayments are too high — we have to address that. But I also want to say, that there’s something wrong when we remain the only country not to guarantee health care to all people as a right. I am going to go forward with a Medicare-for-all single payer program, and I think that’s the direction, long term, that we should be going.” —Bernie Sanders
Wrong prescription: “I think [single-payer] probably is the best system. Because it is a system — we are such a rich country, in a sense we can afford to do it.” —Warren Buffett
And last… “Sometimes the policy that makes you feel good doesn’t actually do good for those you’re trying to help.” —Mary Katharine Ham
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |
