Like most federal court rulings, which are outside the scope of their authority to rule on, we are seeing more interference from a federal court which has no business hearing that case before them. In this particular case regarding arms, I've already laid out the position that the federal government was given no authority to restrict arms in any capacity in the Second Amendment. Yet, we see federal judges going outside of the enumerated powers of the Constitution and doing whatever they want to do with no one calling them out on it. Such is the case with the three-judge panel of the US 7th Circuit Court, who ruled (illegally) that a ban on high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic guns "makes the public feel safer" and, therefore, upheld a previous ruling.
Now, understand that, first of all, there was no place for this federal court to rule, according to the US Constitution. Second, using an emotional argument for upholding an unconstitutional ban smacks of the emasculation of law and demonstrates the effeminate nature of some of the judges that America is putting on the bench.
The Chicago suburb of Highland Park was sued by Arie Friedman following the Sandy Hook shooting and the shooting of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton. They had imposed a ban on so-called "assault rifles," which are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles and any magazines that contain more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Though Friedman was supported by numerous firearms manufacturers and trade groups, as well as the Illinois State Rifle Association, the court sided with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (as well as the Islamic Society of North America) by a vote of 2-1. Lest you think this is a "liberal" court. Every one of these judges was appointed by none other than Ronald Reagan.
The court claims that guns, like the highly popular AR-15, which is in common use by the people of America, does not then translate into constitutional immunity from the federal government.
Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, who wrote the majority opinion said, "During Prohibition, the Thompson submachine gun (the 'Tommy gun') was all too common in Chicago, but that popularity didn't give it a constitutional immunity from the federal prohibition enacted in 1934." Judge Ann Claire Williams also noted that the National Firearms Act of 1934 also regulation fully automatic firearms, something that is also unconstitutional.
Where in the Constitution do these judges get the authority they are wielding? The answer is there is no place in the Constitution that gives them the authority to rule on any matters of guns… nowhere!
Easterbrook cited the landmark Heller case and the Second Amendment, but added that this is not a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Oh yeah? Who told you that Judge Easterbrook? The Second Amendment didn't. In fact, it said the right to keep and bear arms, which are not defined, shall not be infringed. The American people are to be able to not only obtain, but carry any arms they so choose and that right is not to be infringed by the government. So making up silly, emotional arguments and portraying it as the law is ridiculous and as such Judge Easterbrook should be impeached for his crimes against the Constitution and the people it represents.
"If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety," Easterbrook wrote. "Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."
The judge went on to pontificate about "military-grade weapons," "dangerous and unusual weapons" and the like, of which the Second Amendment knows no such language. He also tried to employee militias, which the Second Amendment does address, but he fails to realize the term "rights" have to do with those given by God, as our Declaration of Independence states clearly. He, like Senator Ted Cruz (and no, this is not a shot at Cruz, but Cruz sides with this judge regarding machine guns as not being considered arms in his amicus brief, which you can read here), thinks that certain arms are not for the common man per the Second Amendment. Instead, arms "such as Machine guns, and weapons especially attractive to criminals, such as short-barreled shotguns, are not" to be considered as protected under the Second Amendment.
Now, let me digress briefly because I know Cruz is popular and anyone that speaks against him in any way is labeled a "liberal, communist and yadda, yadda, yadda," but friends, it's your rights he is infringing upon. Does that not at least give you pause, especially those rights that are necessary, as the Second Amendment states, for "a free state." Don't have time to look through the amicus brief of Senator Cruz concerning the Second Amendment and fully automatic weapons? How about you just hear it from his own mouth.
This article is not about Cruz, but it does demonstrate that those appointed by Ronald Reagan and those claiming to be constitutional have similar views of infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms (picking and choosing what they can restrict even though they have not been authorized to do so). If that ticks you off, don't be mad at me, be mad at those who are infringing on your rights! Call them out if you have a problem with it! Elected representatives sought the office, asked for your vote, and took the oath. They are the ones who are accountable.
At least dissenting Judge Daniel Anthony Manion had a grasp on reality and law. Guns.com points out:
In a scathing decent [sic] against the majority, Senior Judge Daniel Anthony Manion contended that only individuals, and neither local nor federal government, have the ultimate decision for "what constitutes the most effective means of defending one's home, family, and property," as he concluded that Highland Park's ban infringes on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens to keep weapons in their homes.
"To be sure, assault rifles and large capacity magazines are dangerous," wrote Manion. "But their ability to project large amounts of force accurately is exactly why they are an attractive means of self-defense. While most persons do not require extraordinary means to defend their homes, the fact remains that some do. Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters."
The federal courts have been going this way for some time. In August 2014, US District Judge Catherine C. Blake ruled that AR and AK style rifles are not protected under the Second Amendment in Maryland. This is one of the countless cases in which federal authorities have usurped authority to infringe upon the rights of the people they serve.
Thankfully, there are plenty of federal judges who rule correctly, such as Judge Frederick Scullin, who ruled the DC ban on carrying handguns was unconstitutional. Or take Judge Reed O'Connor, who shot down the idea that there are residency requirements for handgun purchases.
The fact of the matter is that the 7th Circuit Court had no constitutional authority to even deal with this case much less rule on it. They court chose to ignore their constitutional boundaries and the majority (2 judges) should be impeached for their violation of their oath and their jurisdiction. As for Judge Manion, he should be commended for his stand.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.