In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.
MORE
The reckoning is going to be bloody...
ReplyDeleteAye. Assuming it arrives. What, if anything, will flip that switch?
DeleteI will give up all my guns pointy end first.
ReplyDeleteIt irritates me when people say, "interpret the Constitution" or "interpret the 2nd Amendment". Anyone who believes the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc. needs to be interpreted should be disqualified from holding any federal office - especially judges.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the role of the judiciary (or any other entity) to "interpret" any of these documents. Their role is to determine whether or not post Constitutional laws and other government actions meet the requirements of said Constitution. If a judge is not clear on the language of the Constitution, they can review the writings of its authors to understand their intent. The founder's intent on the 2nd Amendment is clear and the rights codified by the 2nd Amendment are violated on a daily basis.
That judge has no basis for ruling "these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment" and should be impeached and disbarred; as well as all the others that came before him. Any honest person knows the real reason for the 2nd Amendment. These type of arms are certainly Constitutional and necessary to fulfill the intent and purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
This, right here, 1 MILLION percent. I can read and I don't give a runny shit how some asshole in a black dress "interprets" my rights. They're mine/ours. These people have no power to bestow, deny nor dictate conditions on said rights. Fortunately, freedom begins between the ears and I'll decide which laws I abide by. Just. Like. THEY. do. Fuck 'em.
DeleteFirst paragraph is pure gold.
DeleteWhat he said!!!
Delete"The real problem here is that the judge is conflating two different parts of the legal test" Nope, the "real" problem was allowing the NFA of 1934 to become law without the much needed(at that time) Constitutional debate in a court of law.
DeleteIf you read about the first case involving this law, it was a totally effed up defense that gave the green light to decades of the slow erosion of 2A.
Before this law was passed anyone could walk into any store that sold firearms and buy a BAR or any other weapon. They could walk out of that store with their weapon & no more paperwork than a receipt.
The FBI used the fact that some bank robbers and gangsters were using "machine guns" to commit crimes and this law would stop that. yeah, right. SSDI
Why would they need an interpreter for English in our own country? Is it because the pronoun 'they' can be one person, or they do not know what the definition of a woman is. All they need to know is what the word INFRINGE means!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe day they abolish the 2nd Amendment will be interesting.
ReplyDeleteHarris and Putz won't abolish the 2nd Amendment. They both own guns - why, Harris even said they did so it must be the gospel truth.
Delete"Shall not be infringed"...
ReplyDeleteAgree with Rob!
ReplyDeleteWell ... other than military, there's no reason Hawaii should be a state so maybe the Constitution doesn't apply there.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't give a shit what some liberal POS pretend judge appointed by the Nigerian downlow Ahole has to say about anything..
ReplyDeleteFuck him and the wookie lover..
JD