Why Obama's judicial appointments matter

From the Daily Caller:

And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.

That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.” . . . .

More on the ruling is available here.

. . . In documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation asked for a review of Judge Sue Myerscough’s ruling, in which she dismissed the organization’s challenge of the state’s one-of-a-kind ban on carrying concealed weapons.
In a 48-page decision issued Friday, Myerscough said the state’s law barring citizens from legally carrying concealed firearms doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution because the Supreme Court has recognized the right to bear arms only within a home, not outside.
“Plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that includes a right to carry operable guns in public,” Myerscough wrote. “However, neither the United States Supreme Court nor any United States Court of Appeals has recognized such a right.
“Further, the Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home and has cautioned courts not to expand on its limited holding.” . . .

Labels: , ,


Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Stare decisis is an artificial creation that only serves to keep bad decisions in place so that personal ideology trumps reason, logic, and our personal rights as expressed by the Constitution.

A fine example of this, is when Justice Sotomayor relied on post reconstruction cases to give her the basis for some decisions she has made, yet all the while ignoring the historical impact, and the illegality of those earlier cases. e.g. Plessy v Ferguson, Slaughterhouse cases, etc., where the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were esentially nullified by the SCOUTUS for political reasons, and not legal ones.

Unfortunately, we see time and again where our leaders have appointed specific indivivuals to the Court in order to promote their personal agendas, and the people be damned.

Until the day arrives when Judges are forced to comply with the Constitution as it is written, and not as they see fit, we all will be at the mercy of those whom think that we are merely chattel who provide monies to keep such fools in power.

2/15/2012 10:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home