News

Appeals Court Remands Decision for ‘Strict Scrutiny’ of Second Amendment

National Shooting Sports Foundation Logo

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today overturned a federal district court decision that had upheld the 2013 State of Maryland Firearm Safety Act as constitutional under intermediate scrutiny review. National Shooting Sports Foundation Logo Writing for the three-judge appellate court panel that heard the case, Kolbe v. Maryland, Chief Judge William B. Traxler wrote:

“”In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment – ‘the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,635 (2008), and we are compelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these decisions to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard or review for Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim.”

The court vacated the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ claims and remanded the case to the lower court, ordering that it apply the appropriate strict standard of review.

“We are greatly heartened by the Fourth Circuit panel’s ruling today,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), one of the lead plaintiffs in this case. “As this important case goes forward, NSSF will continue to work with our co-plaintiffs to ensure that our citizens’ Second Amendment rights are protected and that the lawful commerce in firearms is restored in support of this constitutional protection.”

About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 13,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit nssf.org.

Here is one ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. What others have you heard of recently? Share them in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (40)

  1. The problem with the state having an interest in sterilizing people is that they can then justify adding more people to their list just as Uncle Adolf did. Jews, gypsies, etc, began with the mentally ill.

    Personally… I think, as member of the population at large, I would love to see the government have an interest in sterilizing certain people… at the neck. This week near my neighborhood, a pedophile attempted to kidnap a child. This guy has a long record and is walking around free to commit more bad acts.

    1. Adolf Hitler closely modeled his sterilization law on Virginia’s sterilization law. The Virginia statute which the ruling of Buck v. Bell supported was designed in part by the eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin.

      The Third Reich held Laughlin in such regard that they arranged for him to receive an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in Buck v. Bell as part of their defense.

      Buck v. Bell was decided by the US Supreme Court on the “state’s compelling interest” to prevent undesirable citizens. Buck was one of the court’s first cases to use “state’s compelling interest.” “State’s compelling interest” is the pure unadulterated definition of “strict scrutiny.” Like it or not, stupid lawyers espousing stupid legal rules and legal cases and stupid judge-made rules can start and precipitate world wars, and help create madmen such as Adolf Hitler.

      In my opinion removing “shall not be infringed” or in the least disregarding it in favor of the “state’s compelling interest,” is tantamount to Buck v. Bell.

  2. “Strict Scrutiny” is a judge-made rule of court. Judges/governments grant you privileges under “strict scrutiny.” Gun rights are NOT privileges to be changed by some slick, gun-hating judge. What government gives the government can take away. With “strict scrutiny,” I’m at the mercy of some liberal, gun-hating judge.

    Those who say “strict scrutiny” is a high standard, impossible to overcome are badly mistaken. We do not live in a utopia world where judges are infallible, moral, or always correct in their opinions.

    “Shall not be infringed” is enshrined into the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In legal terms “shall” is mandatory, and not open for interpretation. And I get to vote on Constitutional amendments. At least I have a say in the outcome. No thank you, I will fight for my guns rights as succinctly stated in the Second Amendment, “shall NOT be infringed.”

    I realize with Harvard lawyers loving judges, loving the courts, and loving judge-made rules rather than the Constitution, I will have a difficult time exercising my rights under the US Constitution.

  3. The ONLY interest I can see that the government can use to excuse stepping on the 2nd Amendment would be revolution. Of course, if they followed the Constitution, there would be no reason for the people to revolt. Thus, the government would lose it’s justification.

    I believe the Founders understood this and Madison and Mason came up with the idea that all should have the right to keep and bear firearms for defense of self, and defense of a nation… not to mention putting some excellent venison on the table.

    When people are truly free, they are happy people and have no reason to vent anger on anyone unless they are attacked. During WW2, many American Merchant Seamen and Coastguardsmen died pulling convoy duty in the Atlantic… Around the Pacific, Americans died during Japanese invasions… and that was not justification for the nation to go to war. It took Pearl Harbor to raise the people’s anger enough to wage war.

  4. The original charter for SCOTUS was that they were charged with determining whether or not a law passed by Congress violated the Constitution. If they ruled it violated the Constitution, the law was void. If it was constitutional, then it was approved. To be constitutional, it must not violate the rights of the people as spelled out in the Constitution. For many decades, challenges to constitutionality have been decided by the court when there already existed the answer either within the Constitution or in the writings of the authors, or supporting writings made during the period of ratification (ex legislative minutes of the states when the authors were called upon to explain the meaning and intent). The states, ratified the Constitution as presented, and for the following 158 years (approx.) the word and intent espoused by the authors was not questioned by the government or the people. The people, without government interference, freely adopted every new firearm technology, up to and including fully automatic weapons.

    Scalia understood this. Unlike many judges appointed to SCOTUS, he held to the original positions of the Founders, that the Constitution was the law of the land, and within that document were the means to make any changes. Because making changes which circumvented the word and intent of the Constitution was expedient, the Legislature, Court, and Executive have taken shortcuts in matters where they knew the people would never agree to such changes if the Constitution were followed.

    We need another Scalia. Perhaps a Napolitano. For sure NOT a Justice Obama or any other progressive justice. We need justices who will guide us back to the law of the land. We need justices and politicians who will adhere to their oaths of office… not someone who, like Ginsberg who openly disses the Constitution.

    1. I agree, legal decisions should be made according to the Constitution, and originally that was the case. “Shall not be infringed” is infinitely stronger than “best interest of the state” in protecting our gun rights.

      The federal district court judge’s decision that overruled the 2013 State of Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act said the case should be based upon a “judge-made” rule that is NOT in the Constitution. If anyone believes a judge should made important legal decisions based on a “judge-made” rule rather than the Constitution, that person is too stupid to vote.

      I am flabbergasted at the number of people who don’t understand the difference between a “judge-made” rule and the US Constitution, and the potential ramifications of turning their gun rights over to a gun hating judge.

  5. The problem is one of semantics – the inclusion of the phrase “any restrictions on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny”. This would be well and good if only constitutionally minded people held office. This sadly is not the case or even a reality. Patrick Henry in speaking for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights warned Madison about this very thing. The question he posed to Madison was “What are you going to do when evil men take office?

    Strict scrutiny means the “best interest of the state.” It is the district court judge’s sole discretion to use strict scrutiny to whittle away your rights. Our rights are given by the creator and are not subject to any mere mortals scrutiny. The state ALWAYS operates for the benefit of the STATE – NOT YOU.

    If one is stupid one shouldn’t vote. Especially when one doesn’t understand that strict scrutiny really means “the best interest of the state.”
    http://www.examiner.com/article/alabama-statewide-amendment-3-could-be-a-slippery-slope

    1. @fair

      Speaking of not understanding strict scrutiny, count yourself as a charter member of the club. You got it exactly backward.

      In cases involving “fundamental” rights, such as the basic human right of armed self-defense, any law that infringes upon the right is PRESUMED to be unconstitutional.

      This presumption imposes the burden upon the government to prove 2 very difficult things in order to show that the the law is constitutional.

      The government must first prove that the law protects a “legitimate government interest,” which is nearly impossible. For example, we all know that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing crime, by punishing actual crimes. But that does not in any way mean that the government has an legitimate interest in infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. So, any law that infringes upon that basic human right is automatically unconstitutional under the Strict Scrutiny Test — as the 4th Circuit indicated in its decision.

      But, even if the government could somehow meet its nearly impossible burden to prove that it has a legitimate interest in telling law-abiding citizens how we may or may not engage in armed self-defense, the government also would be required to prove that the law at issue is the “least restrictive means” to protect that government interest. If ANY law could be imagined that would be less restrictive (like issuing a lifetime CWP compared to a CWP that must be renewed, for example), the law would fail the “least restrictive means” prong of the Strict Scrutiny Test. It is ALWAYS possible to imagine a less restrictive means — politicians being the power-hungry creatures they are by nature.

      Basically — and if you read the dissents in the McDonald case this is EXACTLY what the wacko left is worried about — just by characterizing the right of armed self-defense as a “fundamental” right in the McDonald case, the Supreme Court gave new life to the “shall not be infringed” language of the Second Amendment.

    2. Best interest of the state is NOT an impossible burden to prove. The right to murder unborn children was determined by the best interest of the state, and the right to sterilize undesirable citizens was determined by the best interest of the state. I don’t believe murdering children and sterilizing undesirable citizens is a good thing.

      So now our gun rights are determined by the best interest of the state. All we need is a gun hating judge to make that decision, and there are plenty of gun hating judges just waiting for the chance.

    3. @fair,

      BS. The state has no interest in abortion, “best” or otherwise. The state has no interest in sterilizing citizens. You are just making up stuff.

      As to abortion, the Supreme Court has ruled that the state interest in protecting the life of a fetus is very limited. In other words, a mother’s decision to murder her child is usually a matter of her own conscience and her relationship with God, and the state has no legitimate interest in getting involved in such issues of morality. In very narrow circumstances (late-term abortion, etc.) the state DOES have a legitimate interest in protecting the child, a human being with its own rights, from being murdered.

      And, no our gun rights are not determined by “the best interest of the state.” All laws are presumed to be unconstitutional if they infringe upon a basic human right, including the basic human right of armed self-defense as declared in McDonald. The government can “save” such a law only by proving — which is almost impossible — that the law protects a “legitimate government interest” AND is the “least restrictive means” to do so.

      You don’t know what you are talking about, and by spouting your BS you are more of a threat to MY gun rights than any “gun hating judge.” At least I can show a “gun hating judge” what the law is, and the judge will understand and obey. You don’t even TRY to understand.

    4. In the case of involuntary sterilization by the state, Buck v. Bell: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Law.

      In November of 1925, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Amherst County Circuit Court. A petition for certiorari was filed, briefs were submitted and on May 2, 1927, the United States Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s eugenical sterilization law by a vote of 8 to 1 [Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)].

      In his opinion, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the court’s opinion. The assertions of the expert witnesses at Carrie Buck’s original trial laid the groundwork for Chief Justice Holmes’ resounding statement, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

      On October 19, 1927, Carrie Buck was the first person in Virginia sterilized under the new law.

    5. @fair

      For someone who claims to be “well versed” in the law, you certain are full of BS.

      Buck v. Bell was NOT a “struct scrutiny” case as you suggested. If the Strict Scrutiny Test had existed at the time that case was decided, the result would have been the opposite. There is and never has been a legitimate government interest in sterilizing human beings — not then in 1927, and not now.

      At any rate, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Buck v. Bell in Griswold v. Connecticut, by including reproductive freedom within the same “penumbra” of rights in which the Court included the basic human right of armed self-defense in McDonald. Buck v. Bell said reproductive freedom is NOT protected by the 14th Amendment, but Griswold says the opposite.

      Griswold was basically the “birth” so to speak, of the Strict Scrutiny Test that today is keeping the dang government’s hands off of our guns. Gotta take victories as they come.

      In a twisted sense you are correct to point to Buck v. Bell, because it is one of the worst examples of judicial disregard of human rights in the history of mankind. But it is extremely stupid, intentionally misleading or both, for you to suggest that Buck v. Bell has ANYTHING to do with the Strict Scrutiny Test. That case is literally the OPPOSITE of the Strict Scrutiny Test.

    6. You say, “There is and never has been a legitimate government interest in sterilizing human beings — not then in 1927, and not now.”

      Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.

      On May 2, 1927, in an 8-1 decision, the Court accepted that she, her mother and her daughter were “feeble-minded” and “promiscuous,” and that it was in the state’s interest to have her sterilized. The ruling legitimized Virginia’s sterilization procedures until they were repealed by Virginia in 1974. Buck v. Bell was the law for 47 years. Do you want to loose your gun rights for 47 years?

      Sterilization rates under eugenic laws in the United States climbed from 1927 until Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). While Skinner v. Oklahoma did not specifically overturn Buck v. Bell, it created enough of a legal quandary to discourage many sterilizations. By 1963, sterilization laws were almost wholly out of use, though some remained officially on the books for many years. Language referring to eugenics was removed from Virginia’s sterilization law, and the current law, passed in 1988 and amended in 2013, only authorizes the sterilization of incompetent patients if a Virginia court finds with clear and convincing evidence the sterilization procedure is medically necessary for the patient.

      Although this opinion and eugenics remains controversial, the decision in this case still stands. Buck v. Bell was cited as a precedent by the opinion of the court (part VIII) in Roe v. Wade, but not in support of abortion rights. To the contrary, Justice Blackmun quoted it to justify that the constitutional right to abortion isn’t unlimited.

      In the 1996 case of Fieger v. Thomas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both recognized and criticized Buck v. Bell by writing “as Justice Holmes pointed out in the only part of Buck v. Bell that remains unrepudiated, a claim of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause based upon selective enforcement ‘is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments.'” In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Buck v. Bell to protect the constitutional rights of a woman coerced into sterilization without procedural due process. The court stated that error and abuse will result if the State does not follow the procedural requirements, established by Buck v. Bell, for performing an involuntary sterilization. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.

    7. This is an interesting assertion yet your first point may be too broad and could leave some to believe Hitler’s designs on a master race were founded in on the madness of a handful of American scientists. In Darwinism, Hitler found the so called scientific support and permission for his grim machinations geared at creating the Ubermensch or Aryan Superman. These Germanic heroes would ensure the prospect of survival of the fittest (Darwin’s natural selection) by eliminating all supposed inferiors. It is now obvious, this proved to be anyone not swearing allegiance to the Nazi machine.

      Modeling the German plan after anything in the U.S. was a wily ploy to gain worldwide acceptance for a program that would exterminate all the souls that the balance of humanity was inclined to allow. A portentous German defense may have said, “Look, the Americans did it” but their brand of evil was birthed in the corrupted minds of a handful of elitist devils and supported by emerging, yet highly false and self-gratifying, social science.

      One must wonder for a moment, how many the mayhem may have claimed if it had been contained within Deutsch borders? That is, if Poland and other neighbors had been invaded after the mass extermination of millions of Germanic “defects”, how many millions more might have been murdered?

    8. @petedub, im not a lawyer or even well versed in law, but I took the same conclusion you did after reading an article on “strict scrutiny “. This is a major win for our rights.

    9. Well I am versed in the law. I’ve won cases in federal court and state court. I’ve done an exhaustive study on the subject of “strict scrutiny.” I won a federal case that involved “strict scrutiny, but that is the exception rather than the rule.”

      “Strict scrutiny” is a dangerous judge-made rule that can be used to rule on cases either bad or good. The risk of a case involving “strict scrutiny” going bad is too great that involves gun rights. Especially when we have “shall not be infringed” that should be used instead.

      The legal definition of “strict scrutiny” is the “best interest of the state.” Anyone who would have their gun rights decided on the “best interest of the state” rather than “shall not be infringed” is completely insane.

    10. “The legal definition of “strict scrutiny” is the “best interest of the state.” ”

      That is complete BS.

      I have fully described the Strict Scrutiny Test in previous posts. But you don’t have to believe me, you could do your own research like Chris did (rather than pulling ridiculous stuff out of your rear end as you did).

    11. Well I said in my first post that the problem is one of semantics. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a “compelling state interest.” My words, the “best interest of the state” is saying the same thing as “compelling state interest.” You are capitalizing on my choice of words.

      In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion explicitly rejected a fetal “right to life” argument. The Court instead recognized the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of personal privacy. As a result, regulations limiting abortion had to be justified by a “compelling state interest.” Justice Blackmun applied a strict scrutiny analysis to abortion regulations. The murdering of children was upheld because the state has a “compelling state interest” in the health of the mother, and unborn children do NOT have a “right to life.” Strict Scrutiny went terribly wrong in this case. More than 50,000,000,000 children have been murdered because of strict scrutiny. Gun rights could go the same way.

  6. Thanks for getting back to me about that. When I look at the change in our lives and society I consider the leadership in our country. It seems to me that the leadership in our country has played and is a very determining factor as far as influencing the direction in which we are presently headed. We have have traveled far from where we first started out as a nation and I believe we the people are abundantly clear in recognizing that. I further believe that we recognize the journey has not brought us to a place of prosperity. I hope that as a nation we can resolve to change the direction in which we are going and once again be looked upon with respect and admiration. We as a people deserve better than what we have been and are presently receiving from our leadership.

  7. And let us not forget the influx of illegal aliens who bring with them a culture where daily survival requires gang involvement and criminal activities including robbery and murder. Many are young men who began at an early age and this is the only way they know, and they bring that attitude here.

    SCOTUS has already ruled that police do not have a duty to protect anyone, and law enforcement openly admits that crime is beyond their ability to maintain total control.

  8. Carnivals did use .22cal short ammo…. and the messed with the sights or the barrel to cause people to miss.

    I never attended a school which had marksmanship training. The closest would have been ROTC. Boy Scouts had it available, and they used .22s, and we could get a merit badge.

  9. I must comment. I am torn in my thoughts regarding the safety and protection of not only myself and my loved ones but; the safety and protection of anyone who’s life and safety may be in jeopardy. The question I feel I must ask the Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) and all those citizens who feel that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the people of the United States the right to keep and bear arms is unambiguous. I offer you this scenario. If you were in a mall with your family and a radical person or persons suddenly started to kill people around you, ( I will leave the weapon of choice to you ) then suddenly you find your life and the life of you child in imminent danger. Would you hope, want, pray that the prepared individual standing near by with his/her concealed hand gun intervene to eliminate the threat/threats to you and your child? Or perhaps you prefer he/she be indifferent to the threat and retreat to their own safe haven? After all, you do not believe in the armed citizen. However. Because of that armed citizen you are now able to go home and again hug, hold and tell your family how much you truly love them. Today this is a scenario but, tomorrow or next week or next month it could very well be reality. I do not expect those of you who are disbelievers in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms to change your minds but I would hope that you would weigh this scenario and realize that because of the world we live in today the Second Amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America has never been more necessary than it is today. 9/11 Changed our lives. The Iraq and Afghan wars changed our lives. The terrorist from around the world and the early release of hardened criminals from prison in our own country will also change our lives. There are those of you who have the right not to arm yourselves and there are those of us who have the right to arm ourselves. Which one of us are you going to be when Reality Strikes?

  10. The courts were never given the power to make law

    just rule if law is Constitutional

    Thus all a judge needs to be able to do is READ

    Seems we have many that CAN NOT.

  11. Another example why it’s important to vote for the Republican this year even if it’s not your real choice – not voting or throwing away your vote on a third party candidate is a vote for Hillary (or Bernie) and that’s a vote to gut our personal liberties – remember, the next president will appoint at least one supreme court justice and numerous second tier judges

    Doing anything other than vote for the Republican (even if it’s God help us Jeb) helps elect the next Marxist/Socialist/Progressive/Elitist stooge

    1. @CD

      It all went our way when the Supreme Court decided Heller and McDonald. Now it is just a matter of the rest of the country getting in line and obeying the law as it exists. That may require some of us to stand up for what is right from time to time, rather than following the NRA example of begging politicians to obey the law. Any time elected politicians get involved in any issue connected to the basic human right of armed self-defense, you can pretty much guarantee that they will do harm.

  12. It is more than important that we continue to fight all forms of gun control and further the 2nd amendment rights, in all forms, of every single law abiding citizen in America.

  13. OK. Well, it sounds good, I think. I’m not really sure because this “article” is so short and severely lacking in background detail. I almost don’t see the point of putting it up here. I’m not going to go look up the Maryland case, read it, and then apply the vast knowledge imparted by this piece to it. I guess I’m lazy. I’m also not a lawyer.

    Hey Shooters Log: how about having your authors turn in full articles with an introduction and light summary of the original case and what the lower court ruled and why. Also a very surface treatment/explanation of strict versus intermediate scrutiny would help us non-lawyers really understand the issues here; if that’s possible, many lawyers don’t seem to have brains that work like the rest of us. They’re not smarter, they’re just weird.

    Now, I THINK that the higher court is telling the lower court that they have to actually be serious and not play strict/intermediate games with their gun control cases. I’m no lawyer, so everything I spout here is probably nonsense. The twisting labyrinth of laws, opinions, precedent and this ridiculous concept of variations of “scrutiny” is all a pile of poo poo to me. This is why lawyers are quite often ridiculed for using shades of meaning, outright arguing both sides of an issue depending on which slice they are dissecting (think John Roberts in the ACA ruling!). The combination of Heller and McDonald rulings from the Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that the law abiding citizens of America have the God given right to acquire, keep and bear arms. Period. Maryland, like a lot of States, has literally given 95% of all its considerable flexibility and power delineated in the 10th Amendment to the Federal Government. And, NOW (!?) the idiotic State of Maryland want to buck the Constitution after allowing the illegal actions of the Federal courts and Congress to transgress into the States areas of responsibilities for A HUNDRED YEARS, NOW, they want to go against the clear, plain text meaning of the 2nd Amendment? Even if you are a lawyer, and the plain text is something you want to twist into ridiculous knots (again, think about John Roberts again with the ACA ruling), Heller and McDonald make it abundantly clear that American citizens God given right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    1. @Sean

      I am a lawyer who has written winning briefs in cases decided in the US Supreme Court. I would say that your summary of Heller and McDonald is pretty accurate.

      These folks who are trying to make this subject “complicated” almost always have an agenda — “donate to me so I can protect your rights in this complicated area of law” or “hire me to explain this complicated stuff to you” or “pay me to give you the training you need on on this complex area of law to become entitled to a piece of paper saying that you have a right the Supreme Court has already said you have.”

      My only agenda is to live up to the solemn oath I took to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    2. It should be law that ALL legislation, court actions, etc, be written to a level that the majority of citizens can read and comprehend them. The way things are written it only serves to provide guaranteed employment to a specific class of people… lawyers… of which nearly all politicians and judges belong.

    3. @DaveW,

      In addition to statutes being understandable, we ought to fire any legislator who votes for any statute, unless and until the statute has been tested for constitutionality. But these clowns literally have the attitude that they don’t need to worry about constitutionality until a court tolls them that they screwed up. We ALL ought to be demanding that our legislators take a pledge to vote against any law that they have not personally confirmed is constitutional. But they seriously don’t even ask the question.

    4. For the record, legal scholars are NOT “constitutional scholars.” Quite the contrary actually… they are experts at undermining and usurping constitutional law via their use of British Common Law tactics they learned in Law School. History Scholars are Constitutional Scholars…. They are the people who have studied the historical foundations for everything our Founders created, everything that appears in our Founding documents, everything that is the foundation for American freedom and liberty.

      99.9% of all modern day lawyers in the USA do not know and even more importantly, do not care about the foundations of freedom and liberty or anything in our Founding documents. They were taught in Law School that “they are the law of the land.” That they get to establish law by merely “setting a precedent.”

      In the good old days, they did this via “case law,” court decisions. But now they think they can do it by mere opinion letter… Just like Obama thinks he makes law by Executive memo. And, too many Americans are none the wiser today.

      Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively against this judicial tyranny. He stated in a letter to William Jarvis in 1820, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

  14. If we really had a government that cared about gun safety, rather than gun confiscation, we’d have politicians demand that states set, as part of the high school graduation requirements, 85% on the range, 100% written safety test, and 95% on a fire/no fire stress range after two full semesters of training.

    But we don’t have that sort of politicians. We have power-grubbers who want us disarmed so they can control us more easily.

    1. I am not sure in what part of the country this course was required but, I have been lead to understand that in the 1960’s target shooting using
      a .22 cal was part of the gym class. Also; Gallery guns at carnivals and amusement parks were once the standard.
      Correct me if I am mistaken.

    2. I was in high school from ’64~’66 and we had JrROTC where we had to fire rifles for one semester. (Oddly, no one got killed, no one was even threatened.)

      That’s not the same thing, exactly but came close.

      Of course, the point was to show that government, especially progressives in government don’t care about gun safet, they just want to confiscate guns and any excuse will serve.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.