|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: December 02, 2019, 03:32:27 PM » |
|
________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 12-2-2019
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
_______________________________
The Patriot Post® · Mid-Day Digest
Dec. 2, 2019 · https://patriotpost.us/digests/67099-mid-day-digest-2019-12-02
THE FOUNDATION
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” —Cesare Beccaria
https://patriotpost.us/fqd/67098-founders-quote-daily-2019-12-02
IN TODAY’S EDITION
The Supreme Court finally takes up another gun case.1
Moving on to the House Judiciary Committee…2
Daily Features: More Analysis3, Columnists4, Headlines5, Opinion in Brief6, Short Cuts7, Memes8, and Cartoons9.
IN BRIEF
SCOTUS Takes Up Case on Right to Bear Arms10
Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. This will be the first Second Amendment case the High Court has heard in nearly 10 years following its landmark rulings in Heller11 (2008) and McDonald12 (2010). The case involves New York City’s passage of a gun-control law banning gun-owning residents from transporting their firearms outside their homes and outside city limits, except to select gun ranges within the city and only then provided their handguns are unloaded, locked up, and separate from ammunition. In other words, paper weights that are useless for self-defense.
The draconian and obviously unconstitutional law was immediately challenged by Second Amendment advocates. In a move clearly demonstrating that New York officials knew their law violates the Second Amendment, they sought to prevent the issue from being taken up by the Supreme Court by changing the law to allow gun-owning residents to transport their firearms outside city limits provided it was “directly to and from” a second home or shooting range.
However, this “voluntary cessation” didn’t stop the justices from deciding to hear the case, as they rightly note that the issue at stake is the Second Amendment’s protection of individuals’ right to bear and not merely possess arms. Furthermore, New York officials are clearly seeking to undermine the Heller decision, which protects the right to bear firearms for the “core lawful purpose of self-defense,” as well as “learning to handle and use [arms]” and “hunting.” By limiting a gun owner’s right to bear firearms only in his place of residence, New York was effectively attempting to gut Heller, which is likely why the justices are keen to take up this case to reassert the Court’s judicial authority. Clarence Thomas, for one, has been particularly vocal about the erosion13 of the Second Amendment by municipalities and lower courts.
Predictably, the anti-gun crowd isn’t happy. Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) warned the Court that if it did not drop the case, he and his fellow Democrats would work to “restructure” the Court. “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” Whitehouse ridiculously asserted. He added, “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” Oh, the irony. Who exactly is seeking to inject “the influence of politics” into the Court in order to eliminate Americans’ Second Amendment rights? It certainly isn’t the NRA or Republicans.
If the Court follows the precedent it set with Heller, it’s likely that the ruling will come down to a 5-4 decision. No wonder anti-Second Amendment activists are so upset over the Court’s decision to hear the case.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67096-scotus-takes-up-case-on-right-to-bear-arms
‘Schiff Show’ Roundup: Passing the Baton to Nadler14
We’d venture to guess most Americans didn’t give impeachment much thought over Thanksgiving, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t a few developments. Now that Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee has completed its roster of public hearings, the “Schiff Show” moves to the House Judiciary Committee. New York Democrat Jerry Nadler’s committee will decide whether President Donald Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine is impeachable, and, if so, Democrats there will draft articles of impeachment. Hearings begin Wednesday, Dec. 4.
For his part, Trump dangled the possibility of testifying before Congress himself, but the White House announced Sunday that he has decided against it. “This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to Nadler.
Partisan and unfair? You bet. The Judiciary Committee, like the Intelligence Committee, denied Republican attempts to call for testimony from the so-called “whistleblower.” Yes, that would be the whistleblower who Schiff said would testify … until he changed his mind15 after it was revealed that Schiff’s staff colluded with the whistleblower.
What next? USA Today reports16, “House Democrats have been clear that if they decide to take up articles of impeachment, they want to vote on it before Christmas — leaving about three weeks for hearings, drafting of one or more articles of impeachment, a vote in the House Judiciary Committee on articles and a full House vote.”
The Hill adds the obvious17: “Articles of impeachment against President Trump over his dealings with Ukraine are widely considered near-inevitable — and imminent.” But also, “Virtually no one expects the Senate to vote in favor of removing Trump from office.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67091-schiff-show-roundup-passing-the-baton-to-nadler |
