Though in recent years the Supreme Court has been willing to destroy the unconstitutional efforts to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights, the Court has grown timid in recent years about advancing the cause of freedom in America.
The Supreme Court offered Second Amendment advocates a slap in the face on Monday as they declined to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb’s unconstitutional ban on weapons they have deemed to be “assault weapons.”
In 2013, the Illinois city of Highland Park passed a ban on weapons they arbitrarily considered to be “assault weapons,” a catch-all term preferred by liberals for its scary-sounding phrasing and completely-arbitrary definition.
The law prohibits the possession of semi-automatic firearms that can hold more than 10 rounds- because according to liberal “logic,” 10 rounds fired by a gunman is the acceptable amount of carnage. 11 rounds would be sheer madness, evidently…
Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, the reliably-conservative vanguards of liberty on the Supreme Court, dissented from the denial of the case. Thomas noted that several Courts of Appeals have upheld “categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes.”
“Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case,” Thomas wrote.
Scalia authored the majority opinion in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. In it, the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to gun ownership.
Lawyers for Highland Park cited the Heller opinion in their briefs and said that the Second Amendment is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever.” They argued the ban only prohibits “highly dangerous weapons.”
Of course, the true nature of any weapon is that they are dangerous. That is, precisely, what makes a weapon a weapon. Slapping an arbitrary determination not only keeps citizens less safe, but also undermines the only right enumerated in the Constitution that explicitly emphasizes that the right “shall not be infringed.”
What remains at the center of the Highland Park ban is whether or not the right that explicitly states that the right “shall not be infringed” really means that some infringement by government is actually okay.
Like the issue of segregation decades ago, the Supreme Court has made their stance perfectly clear and yet, lower courts and governments have worked tirelessly to undermine the Heller decision to near irrelevancy.
Unlike the issue of segregation, however, the unconstitutional tramplings of American civil rights is full-heartedly supported by the federal government headed by the Obama regime and the Supreme Court appears unwilling to make their earlier decisions stick by slapping-down the judicial activism of the lower court.
The Supreme Court, like every other institution in America, has become hopelessly partisan and the American people are stuck waiting for a day when liberty can reach all citizens of this nation, regardless of what tyrannical state or city in which they…