Supreme Court removes 2nd Amendment from Constitution

See: Supreme Court upholds federal ban on guns for domestic abusers

Also see:

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Well, to answer ROBERTS question, we must first discover why the Second Amendment was adopted, and to factually answer that question we need to review the pertinent historical evidence as to why the Second Amendment, along with nine other amendments, were presented to the States for their approval. And where do we find the evidence? We find it in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 which confirms its intent is to preserve federalism, our constitution’s plan.

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.

So, the very purpose of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the newly created federal government from entering the states and exercising its powers within the various state borders, and preserving federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Additional evidence confirming this fact is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and acknowledging their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the following Supreme Court Justices took it upon themselves to do for the people what the States and people therein, intentionally prohibited when adding the Second Amendment to the Constitution: ROBERTS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON

In addition to removing the Second Amendment from the Constitution, the above Justices also shredded the Tenth Amendment which was aptly summarized by Madison in Federalist Number 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Finally, let us recall a warning found in “The Old Guard”, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787, published in pamphlet form in 1862:

“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.”

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law", 1858.

will they remove any and every physical item that may be used to injure through assault from every felon’s possession? no knife and fork for you… oh dear, you can kill with a pencil?

2 Likes

Restraining orders are incredibly easy to obtain. My ex got one against me, the crap she spouted about me was taken at face value and there was a 6 month order against me. During that time she started to contact me but I refused to respond. At the end of the 6 months she did not try to reinstate it.

Does this ruling mean that someone who is no longer subject of a restraining order could be refused a firearm or just during the restraining order?

Exactly. A person who is too dangerous to own a gun is also too dangerous to own a car, fertilizer, a pressure cooker, gasoline, etc, etc. All free citizens should retain their right to gun ownership.

6 Likes

If they’re too dangerous to own a gun, they’re too dangerous to be free.

12 Likes

Yup. That seems like common sense to me.

2 Likes

Your points are spot on. Aside from that, where in our Constitution has the federal government been delegated power to enforce the federal law the Supreme Court made reference to?

I think our founders were 100% correct in specifically forbidding the federal government from adopting and enforcing federal legislation restricting the right to keep and bear arms. Cuba comes to mind!

JWK

Our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.

I don’t believe there is any Federal statue involving Federal Jurisdiction over domestic violence. These are state level crimes. This seems to be a state by state matter, not a Federal matter.

See the OP
.
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI
.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.”

It still seems to be an errant federal attempt to interject jurisdiction over a purely state level matter. This is a firearms statute, not a domestic violence statue.

3 Likes

The issue that went up the federal appeal chain was whether the federal statute prohibiting certain people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms violates the 2nd.Amendment, so it seems like a legit Constitutional issue. The decision’s very interesting to read, if only for the deep dive into how disarming someone under a domestic violence restraining order fits into (or is analogous to) the nation’s “history and tradition” of firearms regulation. And they throw a little shade on the Fifth in the course of reversing them.

Domestic violence is not a crime covered by Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Government is too quick to insert itself into what should be state level issues. I find that these types of cookie cutter solutions tend to ignore the individuality of each situation and are rife for abuse.

1 Like

Don’t be silly. This decision is just an affirmation of the status quo. You fork and pencil are going to be fine.

And the status quo is, our Supreme Court has given its approval to a federal law which is forbidden by the legislative intent of the Second and Tenth Amendments.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

agree 100%. This is not a federal issue, and the federal government should stay out of it. There should be no federal statute prohibiting those accused but not adjudicated from enjoying their rights. This issue should not turn on the 2nd amendment. Each state should be able to determine for itself whether or not those with DV restraining orders can be disarmed based on the states requirements to obtain a DV restraining order. Then if challenged federally, the decision should be based on the 14th amendment and whether the states provision(s) satisfy the requirements of due process.

3 Likes

18 USC 922 (g) reads as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien-

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that-

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

To bring down this section, the Supreme Court would have to reinterpret its very expansive definition of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I doubt even this very conservative Supreme Court is inclined to do so. Since they are disinclined to do so, this section will likely continue to stand.

I would also note that Rahimi did not raise the Interstate Commerce Clause issue, so it was not before the Supreme Court in this case.

:roll_eyes:

What wording in our federal Constitution delegates a power to our federal government to enact such legislation? Seems clear to me the protections found in the Second and Tenth amendments prohibit the legislation to be ". . . enforced against him [Rahimi] consistent with the Second Amendment.”

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

Don’t roll your eyes at me, I wasn’t the one who concocted (and since maintained) the expansive reading of the commerce clause. Roll your eyes at yon Justices.

why would he? He was not convicted that I know of. Section 9 requires a conviction.

Section (g)9A,B & C are also authorized under the expansive definition of the Interstate Commerce Clause and are specifically what Rahimi was targeted by. The text in bold applies back to all of 18 USC 922, not just Section 9.

BTW, I am not a fan of this overexpanded Commerce Clause, but I am realistic enough to realize the Supreme Court is not likely to reverse course.