One wouldn’t know it by reading the Associated Press, and it would be folly to believe this will remain the case for the long-term, but numerous judges in the federal court system are actually striking back against immoral and unconstitutional government attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.
The developments come as the result of last year’s Supreme Court of the United States decision in the case of “New York Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v Bruen et al”, render null federal “restrictions” going back to the unconscionable 1968 Gun Control Act, and show Americans that some members of the judicial branch can get it right when it comes to recognizing the immorality and unconstitutional nature of so-called “gun control” statutes.
The first case also highlights two other notable pieces of intellectual ammunition, those being:
One: Not all of those who enjoy the right to keep and bear arms necessarily are “good guys.”
Two: Government claims to protect us from criminals, then lets those criminals out of jail, even as it claims that the ex-convicts are too dangerous to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, which is tautological.
The case yielding these conclusions is called “United States of America v. Zackey Rahimi,” was decided by three-judges sitting in the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals, and saw the court, and saw the opinion written by one of the three, Trump appointee Cory T. Wilson.
In the decision, Wilson stressed that by claiming for the federal government (or any local government) the power to prohibit legal gun ownership by an ex-con or even someone who had been convicted of committing one of a set of select misdemeanor offenses, the 1968 Gun Control Act ran afoul of the Second Amendment.
Some might note the stunning fact that more than five decades passed before this towering injustice was acknowledged and stopped by a court.
That is the most salient part of this ruling, but the crime-novel-esque facts of the case, itself, are worth noting, because they serve to reinforce those lessons listed above.
Judge Wilson explains/alleges that between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas.
Then, writes Wilson:
“On December 1 (2021), after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant. Officers in the Arlington Police Department identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and obtained a warrant to search his home. Officers executed the warrant and found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi admitted that he possessed the firearms. He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, by a Texas state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend.”
That “order” forbid Rahimi from possessing a firearm.
And, as is the case with many people who might not be interested in traveling on the “right side of the law,” one might notice this “prohibition” didn’t stop him from obtaining firearms.
Subsequent to the discovery of the weapons, a federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order in violation of the 1968 Gun control act, known in the legal parlance as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
But, as common sense and the Second Amendment point out, the principle of the right to keep and bear arms must be upheld for all of those who are not incarcerated. The morality is clear: If the state deems one safe enough to be out of jail, one is supposed to be able to exercise the innate right to self-defense with a firearm.
Related: Fed Judge Blocks Enforcement of NY State Ban On Guns In Houses of Worship | MRCTV
The Fifth Circuit judges did not offer as explicit a conclusion as that, but, instead, based their ruling on the precedent set by last year’s Supreme Court decision in the case “New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen et al.”
That decision struck down major portions of a New York State statute that claimed the government could stop residents or visitors from engaging in “concealed carry” of a firearm outside the home. And while the Supreme Court did give New York some ugly room to claim that certain “sensitive areas” could be targeted by the state as “off limits” for concealed carry, the “Bruen” decision stressed that not only was the right to keep and bear arms an individual right, but that the right was, by its nature, supposed to apply to people carrying a firearm beyond the confines of their own property.
In this new case, the Biden Administration argued that “Bruen” allowed the government to prohibit “dangerous” people from owning guns. But Judge Wilson and his cohorts observed that the “Bruen” decision required any government trying to enforce such a prohibition to show how the action conformed to any US historical tradition.
The judge noted that, in the past, there were many Americans who might have been apprehended for an offence, fined, or jailed, released, and then, traditionally, not bothered or vexed by government should those people acquire a firearm.
And the judge observed:
“Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove ‘unordinary’ or ‘irresponsible’ or ‘nonlaw abiding’ people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point…”
This crushes a major, long-standing, portion of the left-passed 1968 Gun Control Act.
And, not surprisingly, Joe Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland, is not pleased. He appears to dislike the right to keep and bear arms as much as he likes the idea of intimidating parents who visit school board meetings to express discontent about leftist content.
Related: Jewish Plaintiffs Sue New York Over Gun Ban In Synagogues | MRCTV
Mere hours after this Fifth Circuit decision hit the net, Garland announced his opposition to it and his intent to appeal to the Supreme Court.
He’s going to have a lot on his hands, because an Oklahoma-based US District Court just ruled that government cannot “prohibit” medical marijuana users from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
Courts always are in flux. Politicians appoint their members, and we often suffer consequences worse than the foundational insult of having to pay for the courts whether we want to or not. But this is a huge win for the Second Amendment and natural rights, and it will be important to follow as Garland continues his unethical attacks.
Follow MRCTV on Twitter!
The price of energy has skyrocketed in Britain, but the government will still fine people who so much as try to burn firewood in their homes. https://t.co/gBlfQvuvfv
— MRCTV (@mrctv) February 8, 2023