Why not remove the federal court's juridiction over the 2nd Amendment?

[SuperDemocrat]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

 

[Chuz Life]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

 

[FA_Q2]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

 

[Contumacious]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

The Founding Fathers thought they were creating an entity which was going to act as a bulwark of liberty.

But now SCOTUS is merely a federal agency designed to perpetrate the fraud that we have judicial review and to act as a disinformation agency determined to convince us that the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state is Constitutional (1787)


.

 

[SwimExpert]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

Because legislatively preempting a court's jurisdiction to review laws for their constitutionality is one of the most extreme examples of government corruption and tyranny possible. What would you think about Congress passing a universal ban on all guns whatsoever, and attaching a jurisdictional preemption clause to it which forbade the courts from reviewing the law? You'd be outraged. And rightly you should. It's no less an abuse in the opposite direction.

 

[2aguy]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

Because legislatively preempting a court's jurisdiction to review laws for their constitutionality is one of the most extreme examples of government corruption and tyranny possible. What would you think about Congress passing a universal ban on all guns whatsoever, and attaching a jurisdictional preemption clause to it which forbade the courts from reviewing the law? You'd be outraged. And rightly you should. It's no less an abuse in the opposite direction.

And you don't think they won't?

 

[SwimExpert]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

Because legislatively preempting a court's jurisdiction to review laws for their constitutionality is one of the most extreme examples of government corruption and tyranny possible. What would you think about Congress passing a universal ban on all guns whatsoever, and attaching a jurisdictional preemption clause to it which forbade the courts from reviewing the law? You'd be outraged. And rightly you should. It's no less an abuse in the opposite direction.

And you don't think they won't?

So far, nobody has. Whether some Congress at some future point actually does it will remain to be seen. If it happens in my lifetime, or if it is suggested, I'll be at the forefront condemning it.

Now that I'm thinking about it....I'm not 100% certain that such a limitation would actually be recognized by the courts. The jurisdictional limitation might be rejected and the court might claim power to review the hypothesized law. I'm going to look into this further. In the meantime I remain adamantly opposed to legislatively imposed wholesale prohibitions on courts reviewing the constitutionality of laws.

 

[Contumacious]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

Because legislatively preempting a court's jurisdiction to review laws for their constitutionality is one of the most extreme examples of government corruption and tyranny possible. What would you think about Congress passing a universal ban on all guns whatsoever, and attaching a jurisdictional preemption clause to it which forbade the courts from reviewing the law? You'd be outraged. And rightly you should. It's no less an abuse in the opposite direction.

On the other hand if SCOTUS continues the trend to declare Constitutionals acts that are not (as was done in England) then the legislature, if it chooses, can abolish the right to bear arms.and if the SCOTUS agrees then it puts an imprimatur of propriety.on the issue.


"As a Federal judge, I have found it often difficult to ascertain the ''intent of the framers,'' and even more problematic to try to dispose of a constitutional question by giving great weight to the intent argument. Indeed, even if it were possible to decide hard cases on the basis of a strict interpretation of original intent, or originalism, that methodology would conflict with a judge's duty to apply the Constitution's underlying principles to changing circumstances. Furthermore, by attempting to erode the base for judicial affirmation of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment (no state shall ''deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws''), the intent theory threatens some of the greatest achievements of the Federal judiciary."

Justice John Paul Stevens


When were the scumbags given the authority to take judicial notice of "changing circumstances"?



.

 

[SwimExpert]

Upon a brief review I conclude that it is impossible for Congress to eliminate all judicial review of laws for their constitutionality under the 2nd amendment. The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. This judicial power cannot be quashed through an act of Congress. Any act of Congress that created a blanket prohibition of courts to review laws for their agreement with the 2nd amendment would themselves be unconstitutional.

It would be theoretically possible for Congress to legislatively preempt some degree of judicial review of such laws. Congress could legislatively define the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as excluding cases raising an issue under the 2nd Amendment. In this case, the highest level of jurisdiction would extend to the federal circuit courts. Congress could also legislatively redefine the jurisdiction of other federal courts to hear such cases. However, if the result were to be a full exclusion of the matter such that no federal court had jurisdiction to hear such a case, then such law(s) would be unconstitutional in that they would violate the constitution's demand that the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and laws of the United States. Some court must have jurisdiction.

That aside, no act of Congress would be able to prevent state courts to hear challenges to state laws based on a violation of the 2nd amendment.

All of this reinforces the fact that trying to strip jurisdiction over such cases would be a horrific idea, even if a legal way were found to do it, because at most it would result in each state being able to apply their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Ozone]

Upon a brief review I conclude that it is impossible for Congress to eliminate all judicial review of laws for their constitutionality under the 2nd amendment. The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. This judicial power cannot be quashed through an act of Congress. Any act of Congress that created a blanket prohibition of courts to review laws for their agreement with the 2nd amendment would themselves be unconstitutional.

It would be theoretically possible for Congress to legislatively preempt some degree of judicial review of such laws. Congress could legislatively define the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as excluding cases raising an issue under the 2nd Amendment. In this case, the highest level of jurisdiction would extend to the federal circuit courts. Congress could also legislatively redefine the jurisdiction of other federal courts to hear such cases. However, if the result were to be a full exclusion of the matter such that no federal court had jurisdiction to hear such a case, then such law(s) would be unconstitutional in that they would violate the constitution's demand that the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and laws of the United States. Some court must have jurisdiction.

That aside, no act of Congress would be able to prevent state courts to hear challenges to state laws based on a violation of the 2nd amendment.

All of this reinforces the fact that trying to strip jurisdiction over such cases would be a horrific idea, even if a legal way were found to do it, because at most it would result in each state being able to apply their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

it's an issue with the map, the boundaries of the federal districts, how to fix that. it looks very half-assed, and it's probably a situation where most people don't really understand it. would probably be much easier to go by time zones.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

That's nonsensical. Who decides which rights are intrinsic and which are not?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why not remove the federal court's juridiction over the 2nd Amendment?


Because then they won't be able to rule on, and repeal, unconstitutional "gun control" laws like the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA etc.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

Not quite. It orders all governments in America not to take away or restrict the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. And it mentions in passing that it's doing it because an armed and capable civilian populace (a.k.a. a "militia") is necessary for security and freedom.

Now, if that helps people form militias, fine and dandy. And if it helps them maintain the security of a free state, that's nice too. But even if it didn't wind up accomplishing those things, it would still be illegal for any govt in the US to take away or restrict the people's right.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

Of course not. The 2nd even implies that the right existed long before the 2nd said anything about it.

But the main impact of the 2nd, is to tell governments they can have no say whatsoever, in who gets to own and carry a gun (or other weapon).

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

Not quite. It orders all governments in America not to take away or restrict the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. And it mentions in passing that it's doing it because an armed and capable civilian populace (a.k.a. a "militia") is necessary for security and freedom.

Now, if that helps people form militias, fine and dandy. And if it helps them maintain the security of a free state, that's nice too. But even if it didn't wind up accomplishing those things, it would still be illegal for any govt in the US to take away or restrict the people's right.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

Of course not. The 2nd even implies that the right existed long before the 2nd said anything about it.

But the main impact of the 2nd, is to tell governments they can have no say whatsoever, in who gets to own and carry a gun (or other weapon).

It is really amazing that the gun-grabber cocksuckers claim that Iraqis under Saddam had more rights to bear arms than Americans.

.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Upon a brief review I conclude that it is impossible for Congress to eliminate all judicial review of laws for their constitutionality under the 2nd amendment. The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. This judicial power cannot be quashed through an act of Congress. Any act of Congress that created a blanket prohibition of courts to review laws for their agreement with the 2nd amendment would themselves be unconstitutional.

It would be theoretically possible for Congress to legislatively preempt some degree of judicial review of such laws. Congress could legislatively define the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as excluding cases raising an issue under the 2nd Amendment. In this case, the highest level of jurisdiction would extend to the federal circuit courts. Congress could also legislatively redefine the jurisdiction of other federal courts to hear such cases. However, if the result were to be a full exclusion of the matter such that no federal court had jurisdiction to hear such a case, then such law(s) would be unconstitutional in that they would violate the constitution's demand that the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and laws of the United States. Some court must have jurisdiction.

That aside, no act of Congress would be able to prevent state courts to hear challenges to state laws based on a violation of the 2nd amendment.

All of this reinforces the fact that trying to strip jurisdiction over such cases would be a horrific idea, even if a legal way were found to do it, because at most it would result in each state being able to apply their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

" Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The supreme court has an appellete jurisdiction to all lower courts but congress can create exceptions if it wanted to.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why not remove the federal court's juridiction over the 2nd Amendment?


Because then they won't be able to rule on, and repeal, unconstitutional "gun control" laws like the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA etc.

They won't do that anyways. These cases will then be tried in separate state courts.

 

[SwimExpert]

The supreme court has an appellete jurisdiction to all lower courts but congress can create exceptions if it wanted to.

Yes, I said that. But the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and the laws of the United States. Therefore, some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that are challenged as being against the 2nd amendment. If an act of Congress deprived all federal courts from having jurisdiction to hear such cases, that that act of Congress would be in violation to the constitution.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The supreme court has an appellete jurisdiction to all lower courts but congress can create exceptions if it wanted to.

Yes, I said that. But the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and the laws of the United States. Therefore, some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that are challenged as being against the 2nd amendment. If an act of Congress deprived all federal courts from having jurisdiction to hear such cases, that that act of Congress would be in violation to the constitution.

Why does it say "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make". Obviously it is OK to do such a thing even in extreme situations such as what you described.

 

[SwimExpert]

The supreme court has an appellete jurisdiction to all lower courts but congress can create exceptions if it wanted to.

Yes, I said that. But the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and the laws of the United States. Therefore, some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that are challenged as being against the 2nd amendment. If an act of Congress deprived all federal courts from having jurisdiction to hear such cases, that that act of Congress would be in violation to the constitution.

Why does it say "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make". Obviously it is OK to do such a thing even in extreme situations such as what you described.

True of false: The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States.

 

[FA_Q2]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

That's nonsensical. Who decides which rights are intrinsic and which are not?

Right are intrinsic period. There is no one that decides such.

Far from being nonsensical - it was the very foundation upon which our government was founded. This is what I mean by these concepts being lost in modern government - you do not even understand this concept and the fact that it is central to what America stands for.

The constitution does not outline rights - it simply defines what rights the government must protect, cannot simply violate and under what circumstances that the government may violate them.