• Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Ought Not ‘Stand by Idly’ as Gun Control Cripples 2nd Amendment



    By AWR Hawkins

    In a June 26 dissent that accompanied the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) announcement that it would not hear Peruta v. California, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court ought not “stand by idly” as state-level gun control cripples the Second Amendment.

    On January 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was asked to review Peruta in hopes of securing a ruling on fundamental rights, particularly as to “whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.”

    Thomas contended that SCOTUS’s decision to pass over Peruta was “indefensible.”

    Read full story here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-self-defense/
    Comments 28 Comments
    1. bigblue's Avatar
      bigblue -
      Just shows that most of the SCOTUS doesn't give a shit about the constitution any more than our politicians do. But we knew that: They all pick and choose which rights to support at any given moment.
    1. Chevy 2 65's Avatar
      Chevy 2 65 -
      Thomas contended that SCOTUS’s decision to pass over Peruta was “indefensible.”
      Yes, yes it is. What a fail on the people in government, and by we the people.
    1. Green_Manelishi's Avatar
      Green_Manelishi -
      I might cause a fire-storm of protest but it needs to be said that the COTUS, and the Bill of Rights, is *supposed to be* a limit on the power of the federal government. Sadly, activist courts seem to have forgotten that truth, and the end result is discovered rights which are then jammed down the throat, or up the arse, of the individual states, and commonwealths. Folks, *we* cannot have it both ways; as much as I despise the laws in MA, they are the business of the MA legislature, not the federal fekkin' government.
    1. bigblue's Avatar
      bigblue -
      except in as much as they violate the supreme law of the land: COTUS. When individual states take it upon themselves to deprive citizens of their rights, there needs to be a recourse.
    1. Horrible's Avatar
      Horrible -
      Quote Originally Posted by bigblue View Post
      except in as much as they violate the supreme law of the land: COTUS. When individual states take it upon themselves to deprive citizens of their rights, there needs to be a recourse.
      THIS. Unfortunately, those of us that believe this (including Justice Thomas) are in the minority in this once great country.
    1. Green_Manelishi's Avatar
      Green_Manelishi -
      Quote Originally Posted by bigblue View Post
      except in as much as they violate the supreme law of the land: COTUS. When individual states take it upon themselves to deprive citizens of their rights, there needs to be a recourse.
      Except in as much as the SCOTUS also violates "the supreme law of the land". When that happens, the Constitution is effectively no limit at all to the power of the Fed, provided the SCrOTUS "approves". If then, what is the point of a legislature?
    1. VetteGirlMA's Avatar
      VetteGirlMA -
      Quote Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi View Post
      Except in as much as the SCOTUS also violates "the supreme law of the land". When that happens, the Constitution is effectively no limit at all to the power of the Fed, provided the SCrOTUS "approves". If then, what is the point of a legislature?
      This is what the left has been doing for decades now. They turned the courts into super legislatures where they can be sole arbiters of the law and the decisions are nearly impossible to overturn. I think it's fun ramming it down their throats now for a change.
    1. SKumar's Avatar
      SKumar -
      Can you imagine if the Mass AWB was up for SC review and got denied?

      Given that CA is in worse shape than MA regarding gun rights, this denial is a major step backwards in restoring 2A.
    1. Coyote33's Avatar
      Coyote33 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi View Post
      Except in as much as the SCOTUS also violates "the supreme law of the land". When that happens, the Constitution is effectively no limit at all to the power of the Fed, provided the SCrOTUS "approves". If then, what is the point of a legislature?
      "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"
    1. Squire's Avatar
      Squire -
      Texas to Montana, Nevada to West Virgina, the Free States of America may someday declare their Independence if the usurpations don't stop and power is not ceded back to the People.
    1. 71montess's Avatar
      71montess -
      Except the 2nd amendment to OUR constitution of the United States , sets a line in the sand that the individual States "should" not cross.
    1. Green_Manelishi's Avatar
      Green_Manelishi -
      Quote Originally Posted by 71montess View Post
      Except the 2nd amendment to OUR constitution of the United States , sets a line in the sand that the individual States "should" not cross.
      Except that the 10th amendment reserves to the states, or the people, any power not specifically granted to the Fed, or denied the states. Subsequent amendments have been used to justify an ever increasing intrusion, and incursion, into the rights of the individual states. Thus, much as I dislike it, the states SHOULD have the right to regulate firearms, it's the Feds that are to sit down and shut up.
    1. Chevy 2 65's Avatar
      Chevy 2 65 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi View Post
      Except that the 10th amendment reserves to the states, or the people, any power not specifically granted to the Fed, or denied the states. Subsequent amendments have been used to justify an ever increasing intrusion, and incursion, into the rights of the individual states. Thus, much as I dislike it, the states SHOULD have the right to regulate firearms, it's the Feds that are to sit down and shut up.
      So states have the right to ignore the constitution? If so, they should be removed/or leave the union, but states will never leave the cows tit
    1. Bob P's Avatar
      Bob P -
      It was a pussy move by the court. Thomas is correct.
    1. Chevy 2 65's Avatar
      Chevy 2 65 -
      http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

      - - - Updated - - -

      Quote Originally Posted by Bob P View Post
      It was a pussy move by the court. Thomas is correct.
      ^^^^this is spot on 100%
    1. Green_Manelishi's Avatar
      Green_Manelishi -
      Quote Originally Posted by Chevy 2 65 View Post
      So states have the right to ignore the constitution? If so, they should be removed/or leave the union, but states will never leave the cows tit
      A few states attempted to secede; the response from the Fed was not pretty. It was bloody and destructive.

      You might want to review a bit of the COTUS, SC(r)OTUS rulings in the past, and carefully consider how much usurped power you want the SC(r)TUS to wield; unfettered they hand us abortion, gay marriage, no more prayer in school, forced purchase of "healthcare", etc. Personally, having had the unpleasant experience of an automobile failing an inspection in the Commywealth of NAZIchusetts, due to dark windows, but passing the inspection in The Peoples Republic of Maine-achusetts, I'd like to see the Feds take over inspections and issue a national driver's license and all. That, however, would violate a primary directive of mine; that the Fed should be EXTREMELY limited in power and authority.
    1. Individualist's Avatar
      Individualist -
      Tinted windows are not a constitionally protected Right. States are not (should not be) allowed to usurp that which is Federally protected for the people by the Constitution, yet when it comes to 2A they do.
    1. Chevy 2 65's Avatar
      Chevy 2 65 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi View Post
      A few states attempted to secede; the response from the Fed was not pretty. It was bloody and destructive.

      You might want to review a bit of the COTUS, SC(r)OTUS rulings in the past, and carefully consider how much usurped power you want the SC(r)TUS to wield; unfettered they hand us abortion, gay marriage, no more prayer in school, forced purchase of "healthcare", etc. Personally, having had the unpleasant experience of an automobile failing an inspection in the Commywealth of NAZIchusetts, due to dark windows, but passing the inspection in The Peoples Republic of Maine-achusetts, I'd like to see the Feds take over inspections and issue a national driver's license and all. That, however, would violate a primary directive of mine; that the Fed should be EXTREMELY limited in power and authority.
      have to disagree. The feds should and need to uphold the Bill rights etc.. and bitch slap states that violate those rights ! inspection stickers are BS.
    1. jhblaze1's Avatar
      jhblaze1 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Chevy 2 65 View Post
      Yes, yes it is. What a fail on the people in government, and by we the people.
      can you guys pipe down about rights? kardashians is on.
    1. Green_Manelishi's Avatar
      Green_Manelishi -
      Quote Originally Posted by jhblaze1 View Post
      can you guys pipe down about rights? kardashians is on.
      Finally, someone with the right, haha, priorities.
  • Visit our sponsors