Tag Archives: District of Columbia v. Heller

The Constitution Upheld By U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Posted on by

The legislative action part of the National Rifle Association is reporting today that ruling on the legal case Duncan v. Becerra, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.

The article reports:

Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared. 

In a scholarly and comprehensive opinion, Judge Benitez subjected the ban both to the constitutional analysis he argued was required by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and a more complicated and flexible test the Ninth Circuit has applied in prior Second Amendment cases.

Either way, Judge Benitez ruled, the law would fail. Indeed, he characterized the California law as “turning the Constitution upside down.” He also systematically dismantled each of the state’s purported justifications for the law, demonstrating the factual and legal inconsistencies of their claims.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment protects American citizens from a tyrannical government–the Founding Fathers understood that the fact that they possessed weapons allowed them to free themselves from the rule of Britain. They wanted to protect future Americans from a tyrannical government. Beware of people who want to take guns away from America–that is the beginning of tyranny.

Lies And Lack Of Logic

Posted on by

I watched part of the Presidential debate last night and was someone confused by one of the claims made by Hillary Clinton. I remember the Heller case, and I don’t remember hearing anything relating to the case about toddlers. The Federalist website did the research for me. They posted an article late yesterday reminding us of the details of the Heller case.

The article reports:

It’s a lie so absurd that I honestly don’t know where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot: No, the Heller decision was not about toddlers. It had nothing to do with toddlers. Nothing. It’s no coincidence that the word “toddler” doesn’t appear in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case. Nor does the word “toddler” appear anywhere in the 110-page transcript of the case’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Because the case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.

…No mention of toddlers. Because the case wasn’t about toddlers. It was about whether the District of Columbia’s “total ban on handguns” — the Supreme Court’s characterization of the law at issue in the case — was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that Heller, a police officer, had a constitutional right to own and bear a firearm in his home. It had nothing whatsoever to do with toddlers.

If Clinton opposes an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect his or her family, she should just come out and say so instead of blatantly lying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. But it gets better: after claiming that the Heller decision was all about toddlers, Hillary then claimed that the Constitution guarantees a right to partial-birth abortion, a practice that requires an abortionist to rip an unborn baby from the womb, stab or crush her skull, and then vacuum out her brains. Because Hillary Clinton’s top priority is protecting innocent children from violence.

I can’t even imagine who told Hillary Clinton that the Heller case was about toddlers or who thought the public would buy the lie. In the past, before the advent of alternative media, it might have worked. However, I am hoping the American public will investigate this on their own and see the absurdity of this claim.

Haven’t These People Read The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on by

Today Breitbart.com reported that Robert Barnes, a reporter for the Washington Post, has argued that the individual right to keep and bear arms was established in 2008 by the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that was decided five to four.

First of all, The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—

According to the Declaration of Independence, our rights are unalienable, they come from God–not from man, and government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Our rights do not come from the Supreme Court or any Justice on the Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The article reports:

Barnes makes this point by citing UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who notes Kennedy voted with the majority in Heller, thereby “establishing the individual gun ownership right.” But Winkler also contends that “it was Kennedy who insisted” the decision “contain language” making clear the court “was not calling into question reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.”

Winkler subsequently suggested the court’s finicky appetite toward gun cases since Heller and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a reflection of “concern about the way Justice Kennedy is going to go [in future cases].” 

For Barnes, like Winkler, Kennedy is key to restricting “the fundamental right the court found six years ago.

The Second Amendment (like the rest of the U.S. Constitution) was designed to protect Americans from a tyrannical government usurping power and taking over the country. At some point I hope that those who want to undo the Second Amendment realize that it protects them–it does not endanger them.