9th Circuit Court Ruling on Open Carry

[O.S.O.K. 1961]

This is quite surprising - this usually liberal as all-getout Court actually ruled that open carry is covered under the 2A. This came out of a civil suit filed by a Hawaiian citizen - this youtube vid explains it all quite well:

 

[Renegade]

This was vacated on 2/8 and will be reheard en banc in 2019

 

[BRD@66]

Thank you. Good info. I've never watched a video of that length before. I always nodded off. The only time I was distracted was at the point with the Republic of Kommiefornia flag and their no arms bear. After LOLing, I had to back the tape up some.

 

[benenglish]

We need one more good mind on the Supreme Court. Badly. Now.

There are too many cases swirling around out there to fully trust the current balance.

 

[diesel1959]

We need one more good mind on the Supreme Court. Badly. Now.

There are too many cases swirling around out there to fully trust the current balance.

TRVTH. We need that one more good mind who will help satisfy The Rule of Four more often on cases of great importance (like Peruta was but was never heard) so that cert. is granted. So many cases are never granted Writ of Certiorari simply because you don't get those four critical votes and the Circuit Court decision stands untouched. Sure, it's important to count votes AFTER the case is briefed, argued, etc.; however, if you don't get cert. granted, The Court will never hear the case.

 

[vmax]

We need one more good mind on the Supreme Court. Badly. Now.

There are too many cases swirling around out there to fully trust the current balance.

Agreed
Now that Kavanaugh is there , Robert's feels liberated to be as left wing as he really is down deep...and that's pretty far...

 

[leVieux]

Err, No !

We have been conditioned to accept a "balanced court"; BUT, every Justice should have first fealty to the U S Constitution !

The concept that it is somehow OK for 3 or 4 of them to be guided by something other than the US Constitution is simply WRONG !

leVieux

 

[Vaquero]

Err, No !

We have been conditioned to accept a "balanced court"; BUT, every Justice should have first fealty to the U S Constitution !

The concept that it is somehow OK for 3 or 4 of them to be guided by something other than the US Constitution is simply WRONG !

leVieux

 

[jrbfishn]

Err, No !

We have been conditioned to accept a "balanced court"; BUT, every Justice should have first fealty to the U S Constitution !

The concept that it is somehow OK for 3 or 4 of them to be guided by something other than the US Constitution is simply WRONG !

leVieux

Agreed.
The only question the Supreme Court was created to answer is "is it allowed under the Constitution?".
Not sort of. Not should be. And not, "it's for the greater god" or "well it's just a little thing so we will let this slide".
Just yes it is or no it is not. Period.

If it is needed for the greater good for LE to better do their jobs, then there is a proper way to do it. It's called an Amendment to the Constitution.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

Agreed.
The only question the Supreme Court was created to answer is "is it allowed under the Constitution?".
Not sort of. Not should be. And not, "it's for the greater god" or "well it's just a little thing so we will let this slide".
Just yes it is or no it is not. Period.

If it is needed for the greater good for LE to better do their jobs, then there is a proper way to do it. It's called an Amendment to the Constitution.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

"The only question the Supreme Court was created to answer is "is it allowed under the Constitution?"

EXACTLY !

But statists have used every conceivable avenue, including our Court, to attack our Constitution and our American FREEDOMS !

We must object, possibly FIGHT, to protect our Nation for our Children !

leVieux

 

[Renegade]

"The only question the Supreme Court was created to answer is "is it allowed under the Constitution?”

No.

The Supreme Court was created as the final Appelate Court. Judicial Review was power it gave itself.

 

[jrbfishn]

Yes the final appellate court. To be the final answer to the question, "does the decision of the lower Court violate the Constitution or individual rights?".
Whether criminal, civil or a suit brought against a Law. They are there to be the final determination as to whether the lower Courts or the Government can enforce an action or decision of law under the Constitution.
Constitutional decisions should always be decided by strict definition of the Constitution. Anything else means it was decided at least partially on feelings.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

Yes the final appellate court. To be the final answer to the question, "does the decision of the lower Court violate the Constitution or individual rights?".
Whether criminal, civil or a suit brought against a Law. They are there to be the final determination as to whether the lower Courts or the Government can enforce an action or decision of law under the Constitution.

No.

There is no place in the Constitution where they are given that authority, nor were they created to do it. They created it on their own.

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

 

[diesel1959]

No.

There is no place in the Constitution where they are given that authority, nor were they created to do it. They created it on their own.

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

But, ultimately, nothing else matters without the Court's right of Judicial Review, because without it, the Congress and/or the Executive can get away with abusing THEIR oath(s) to the Constitution. So SCOTUS follows its oath by forcing the other two branches to follow theirs. One can go on and on about Marbury v. Madison till the cows come home; however, it was and remains an absolutely essential part of what makes the Republic tick like a clockwork.

And the ticklish thing is to ensure that the SCOTUS judges follow their oath(s) . . . which is why we need originalists.

 

[jrbfishn]

No.

There is no place in the Constitution where they are given that authority, nor were they created to do it. They created it on their own.

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Not original jurisdiction but it has always had appellate jurisdiction in almost any case. What you mention just basically codified it.
If the Supreme Court can't hear Constitutional cases, then we have no defense against lawmakers that pass laws violating it.
Well except outright revolution. That could get messy.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

If the Supreme Court can't hear Constitutional cases, then we have no defense against lawmakers that pass laws violating it.
Well except outright revolution. That could get messy.

We sure do have a defense. It is called Amendments. The founders did not foresee Unconstitutional laws and did not give power of judicial review to anybody. That is easily remedied.

 

[leVieux]

No.

The Supreme Court was created as the final Appelate Court. Judicial Review was power it gave itself.

On deciding appeals, of course.

But after Roberts' trick with ObamaCare, who knows where their over-reach will try to go?

leVieux

 

[gshayd]

When FDR kept getting turned down by the Supreme Court for some of his New Deal Programs he eventually sat enough judges on the USSC during his three terms and part of the fourth term to get enough votes from the justices to say his programs were Constitutional.

 

[leVieux]

When FDR kept getting turned down by the Supreme Court for some of his New Deal Programs he eventually sat enough judges on the USSC during his three terms and part of the fourth term to get enough votes from the justices to say his programs were Constitutional.

Yes, the "New Deal" and its child, the "Great Society" were the death certificates for American Constitutional Freedom !

"Entitlements" cannot coexist with Private Property and Personal Freedom !

leVieux

 

[cdb]

But, ultimately, nothing else matters without the Court's right of Judicial Review, because without it, the Congress and/or the Executive can get away with abusing THEIR oath(s) to the Constitution. So SCOTUS follows its oath by forcing the other two branches to follow theirs. One can go on and on about Marbury v. Madison till the cows come home; however, it was and remains an absolutely essential part of what makes the Republic tick like a clockwork.

And the ticklish thing is to ensure that the SCOTUS judges follow their oath(s) . . . which is why we need originalists.

And ultimately the Supreme Court does not matter for the same reason; our own history shows that we can't trust any court controlled by the government to police the government.

It doesn't really matter if we need originalists, it only matters if we are likely to get them. And unfortunately I think that's pure fantasy.

As a side note, this is why (as Spooner pointed out) the only real check the judicial process can provide over government is via jury nullification. And as you'd expect, the judiciary has done everything in it's power to neuter it.