Obama's Judges : Right to Bear Arms Not An INDIVIDUAL Right

[Contumacious]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

 

[koshergrl]

Heaven help us.

 

[Contumacious]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

Super important that we encourage Senator Paul and Cruz to filibuster /block all of Obama's nomination to the federal bench.

.

 

[Mad Scientist]

That right! We all have Collective Rights not individual rights.

Bravo 4th Circuit!

 

[Intense]

Elections have consequences. The collectivists are good at smoke screens and distorting the truth. The above post is a great example. It's a cancer. Tyrants have always been offended by the concept of Individual Liberty. Too bad, too many, are to preoccupied to see the threat for what it is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This decision is truly remarkable. It holds that under intermediate scrutiny, the government can entirely deny a fundamental consitutional right to 99% of the population... all they have to do is say "public safety."

This falls under the category of Judicial Tyranny, as defined by the union of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

Function 3:

Although the Constitution allows judicial review*** via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.



Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

5. Serves to legislate Common Law (unification of the Judical and Legislative Powers)


The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be delimited, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Elections have consequences. The collectivists are good at smoke screens and distorting the truth. The above post is a great example. It's a cancer. Tyrants have always been offended by the concept of Individual Liberty. Too bad, too many, are to preoccupied to see the threat for what it is.

You know what is the most depressing about this Intense? That there is a large portion of the population that is relishing this decision saying "I told you so, you're wrong!" while their civil liberties our devoured by their own Consent.

Still, a jury can still practice Jury Nullifcation to override the Courts

 

[there4eyeM]

Someone could say this is an understandable interpretation of the 2nd. 'The people' is a collective term and, as a militia is what is mentioned for the defense of a free state, the state could have armed people without providing that anyone and everyone could carry a firearm anywhere any time.
Someone could say that, but if she/he were to say it here, she/he would probably be negged by someone who prefers negativity to healthy discussion. I wish her/him luck.

 

[there4eyeM]

I should add that someone could say these things without necessarily being in agreement with the decision.

 

[Contumacious]

That right! We all have Collective Rights not individual rights.

Bravo 4th Circuit!

It is well known that we do not have a right to life and to defend the same.

We do however do have a right to food stamps and welfare - that RIGHT can not be transgressed upon under any circumstances.

 

[editec]

The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.

Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.

But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.

Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.

But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.

Editec, visit this thread concerning the THIRD Amendment that clarifies this issue.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndment-refutes-all-gun-control-arguments.html

 

[Contumacious]

This decision is truly remarkable. It holds that under intermediate scrutiny, the government can entirely deny a fundamental consitutional right to 99% of the population... all they have to do is say "public safety."

The "Judges" disregarded the Constitution in favor of the Democratic Platform.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

This is why I have always said heller wasn't a second amendment victory. The inside the home was what the draw back was for me. You have a right to defend yourself inside your home but not on the outside? Now we have an example of how this ruling will be used against you. That's why I say Miller vs. U.S. is the only ruling that protects your right too keep and bear arms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Someone could say this is an understandable interpretation of the 2nd. 'The people' is a collective term and, as a militia is what is mentioned for the defense of a free state, the state could have armed people without providing that anyone and everyone could carry a firearm anywhere any time.
Someone could say that, but if she/he were to say it here, she/he would probably be negged by someone who prefers negativity to healthy discussion. I wish her/him luck.

So how would you interpret
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[there4eyeM]

Someone could say this is an understandable interpretation of the 2nd. 'The people' is a collective term and, as a militia is what is mentioned for the defense of a free state, the state could have armed people without providing that anyone and everyone could carry a firearm anywhere any time.
Someone could say that, but if she/he were to say it here, she/he would probably be negged by someone who prefers negativity to healthy discussion. I wish her/him luck.

So how would you interpret
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What's to interpret? It seems clear enough.

How do arms relate to these?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Someone could say this is an understandable interpretation of the 2nd. 'The people' is a collective term and, as a militia is what is mentioned for the defense of a free state, the state could have armed people without providing that anyone and everyone could carry a firearm anywhere any time.
Someone could say that, but if she/he were to say it here, she/he would probably be negged by someone who prefers negativity to healthy discussion. I wish her/him luck.

So how would you interpret
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What's to interpret? It seems clear enough.

How do arms relate to these?

So the people are only the collective when it's guns and individuals when it's not?

 

[there4eyeM]

So how would you interpret
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What's to interpret? It seems clear enough.

How do arms relate to these?

So the people are only the collective when it's guns and individuals when it's not?

I don't get that the collective sense of 'people' is different in the citations.

 

[Agit8r]

That right! We all have Collective Rights not individual rights.

Bravo 4th Circuit!

Well, don't congratulate them too heartily, they did after all defer to precedent:

We now know, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. See 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Heller, however, was principally concerned with the "core protection" of the Second Amendment: "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121437.P.pdf

 

[Londoner]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

You are completely misreading the specifics.

(another rightwing hit job...)

yawn, nothing to see here