Second Amendment supporters got slammed with a major defeat today–when the Supreme Court decided to look the other way on a key gun rights case, and reject its appeal.

Everyone except Justice Clarence Thomas, who was livid–and had some choice words for his colleagues on the bench.

The case, Jackson v. San Francisco, was filed by gun owners in San Francisco, who were targeted by a new law that severely limited the use of their handguns. The law states that all handguns kept at home had to be “stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.”

Obviously, that renders a gun less than useful in the event of a home invasion–when a resident would need to access their weapon quickly, without cracking open a safe.

Because of the Supreme Court’s punt, that law remains on the books. But Justice Thomas wasn’t about to take the defeat sitting down. He wrote:

“Despite the clarity with which we [previously] described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.”

While the Supreme Court rejecting a suit has no bearing on national gun laws–if a gun owner lives outside of San Francisco, this ruling will have zero effect–it signals a key shift in the way the Supreme Court thinks about the Second Amendment.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has been doing their part to stand up for gun rights. In 2008, they issued a ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. They ruled–quite logicially–that banning handguns altogether was a huge violation of the Second Amendment. And some liberal legal scholars have bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court was moving to protect gun owners like never before.

But with Jackson v. San Francisco, it looks like the golden age of gun rights might be a thing of the past–and, like Justice Thomas said, it’s a shame, because of how critical America’s Second Amendment rights are to our Constitution.

Views: 1604

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is the erosion of sovereign constitutional rights by a politically motivated Bench.  There can be no doubt that when viewing the three branches of the federal government, that the agenda is to homogenize our nation into a pablum digestible by globalists.  

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are not the branches of the government of the United States of America.  

THE CONSTITUTION begins with “We the People”, as you read it you find the Principal Branch of Government (We the People) grant privileges in a precisely restricted manner, to our state and our state parses out some of those privileges to our federal government, with the consent of the governed.  It is “We the people” who must draw the line when the Federal Government seeks to infringe upon our rights, our inalienable rights.  

Branches of Government as defined by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights: 

FIRST BRANCH.  We the People are endowed with inalienable God-given rights (or higher power, and/or common sense awareness of individual sovereign liberty); Rights (not privileges granted by a government) which are ours by birthright, or legal naturalization, because we are a free people who live in a Republic which first serves us by cooperatively maintaining our rights and governing WITH THE CONSENT of the governed, which does not include executive orders that abrogate or infringe upon those rights.  

It is for performing the service of cooperatively protecting our constitutional rights THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY THEN challenge us to: “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”  - John F. Kennedy. 


THIRD BRANCH. The Federal Government 

That said, the branch with the most power is “we the people”.  We would be remiss if we allow perversion of the Constitution and stripping of our rights to continue.  The second amendment protects us from tyranny. 

This is a call, not to arms, but to action.  

However, if you ARE a legal gun owner, please keep it.  The right (inalienable) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well said Michael.  This was such an obvious flawed (political) decision by such a majority one has to wonder how they qualified for a law degree.  Hurray for Justice Thomas!  Unfortunately this was not the first by many of them.  About the only thing supreme is the title they were given.

Need a way to fire those so called justices

Term limits. Do not need them there until they die.

And also they (justices) should be apolitical folks, never biased...!!

We the People need to hang most of those in government who are ruling over us outside of the Constitution!!!!!  abolish the federal government and the political party (there is only 1 party with two globalist dictatorial wings, the NEW WORLD ORDER SOCIALIST PARTY with an elephant wing and a donkey wing)!!!!!

Damned freaking liberals. We can't even count of the SC to protect our rights, so that means every one for themselves. God help us, but I believe that even God has had enough of the way Americans have treated Him and His word.

Warrior, I agree but there are still many of us who adhere to God's ways so there is still some hope with fervent prayer and obedience.

The case, Jackson v. San Francisco, was filed by gun owners in San Francisco, who were targeted by a new law that severely limited the use of their handguns.

The law states that all handguns kept at home had to be “stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.”

stored in a locked container    - - - nothing in the LAW says that that "Locked Container" cannot have a 'false bottom' when the 'Handle of the 'Locked Container' is 'Pulled upon the WHOLE Container EXCEPT for the BOTTOM -which the handgun rest upon - coms up & the Handgun is now ready to be used. [Provided that it is loaded]

Meets the Standard-Of-The-San Francisco-Law                              :)


The nasty mother f...... are NOT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHEN THEY GO AGAINST OUR CONSTATUTION AND ADMENDMENTS, THEY WENT AGAINST AN OATH THEY TOOK UPON ENTERING THEIR OFFICE!!! REMOVE THEM!! REMOVE THEM!!REMOVE THEM!!Don't allow them to sit before another case, bar the doors, sue each one individually, not the state or government THEM PERSONALLY. Start making these slezeballs responsible for their UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS !!!




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service