Obama is very determined to make the American public defencless against the muslim terrorists that he is flooding into the USA. The great minds who put the constitution together knew how the elite would try to take the freedoms away. Obama studied the constitution so he would be adept at downgrading it as much as possible. Hopefully there are enough loyal patriotic senators to keep him from having too much success. Read some tof the comments below and maybe you might even want to open the page and make a comment yourself.
Every Gun Owner In America Should Read This About Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee
http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-e ... t-nominee/
President Obama’s nominee to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the US Supreme Court would vote to limit Second Amendment rights if he is confirmed, observers contend.
Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace Scalia, who died last month on March 16, 2016.
Currently, the court’s makeup is tied, 4-4, on gun rights.
“Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Carrie Severino wrote in The National Review.
Do You Know The Best Way To Hide Your Guns?
In 2007 Garland tried to undue a pro-gun federal court ruling that had overturned a Washington D.C. law that banned private ownership of handguns, Severino noted.
“A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court,” Severino wrote.
That law was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Heller, in which the justices ruled that the Second Amendment protects private gun ownership.
In an earlier case, Garland ruled that the Clinton administration had a right to retain records of gun buyers for six months, Severino noted. That violated a 1968 federal law in which Congress banned gun registration.
garland“Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things,” Severino wrote. “First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners. That’s not so moderate, is it?”
George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin wrote in a Washington Post column that “it is unlikely that Obama would have nominated Garland if he were not going to be a reliable liberal vote on most major issues that might come before the Supreme Court.”
Vicious New Hand-Held Self-Defense Tool Turns Lethal In Seconds!
Somin, a conservative, actually believes it might be a good idea for the US Senate to confirm Garland’s nomination. Somin fears that Hillary Clinton will win the election and try to appoint someone further to the left than Garland.
The National Rifle Association opposes Garland’s nomination.
“A basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” Chris W. Cox of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) said in a press release.
Cox noted that the court is currently evenly divided between pro-Second Amendment conservatives and pro-gun rights liberals.
“With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense,” Cox wrote. “Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do not.”
Are you concerned about President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Not So Free
March 17, 2016 at 7:27 pm
It’s not just the 2nd Amendment he’s wrong on.
Google his rulings.
March 17, 2016 at 7:55 pm
People remember a right is not a privilege, to be altered in any way by ANYONE. No matter who they think they are. Its time for people to actually stand up for there God given rights I want you to think for a minute why did Jesus-Yashua allow his disciples to carry swords start defending yourself and loved one’s no person on this earth has power over you unless you give it to them.
March 19, 2016 at 10:35 am
You are so right.
The constitution only describes the rights people have naturally, not rights given by anyone. By all definitions, the supreme court is simply just another court by the government who the constitution restricts authority and has no more more authority to decide what a right is to begin with.
We act as though the supreme courts decisions are the final say. Nothing could be further from the truth- it is just another “opinion” derived from a plethora of legal terms and words meant to confuse an issue to the people in order to favor the supreme courts agenda.
The 2nd amendment (all amendments) does not belong to the courts or lawyers to decide it’s content. Their rulings must be by the “Consent” of the people!
Gabriel de Orozco
March 18, 2016 at 2:04 pm
What everyone fails to interpret and understand, regarding the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a brilliant document enacted by men the like we will probably never see again, is the written fact that it was drafted to prevent tyranny above all. Nowhere does it claim the right to a citizen to own a weapon for the simple sake of personal defense or his family’s. It DOES say in fact…that the right of a well armed militia should be guaranteed. This is in direct opposition to a tyrannical ruler, or monarchy, infringement of the right of individual states and/or citizens. In other words, to prevent the Federal Government from exercising unreasonable and forceful mandates over the nation, without the proper representation and consent. We have the right by the Second Amendment, to rise in opposition to federal dictatorial mandates, armed if necessary, to maintain our basic freedoms as guaranteed under the Constitution. The left wingers understand this right and will do whatever is necessary to abolish this right. In the meantime, while Americans are at each others throat arguing whether is Trump or Hillary for President, Obama and his entourage are headed to a Caribbean vacation with the longest running totalitarian, communist dictatorship in the history of the hemisphere. On the sweat of the AMERICAN taxpayer’s penny, and by exercising well abused Executive Power.
March 18, 2016 at 7:57 pm
You forgot the shall not be infringed part.
March 19, 2016 at 10:38 am
Upon which has been violated already- many times over.
March 19, 2016 at 2:49 pm
The clause in the Second Amendment concerning the ‘well regulated militia’ is subordinate to ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The opening clause sets the rationale, the second clause states the law. It is hard to understand how highly educated lawyers and justices can fail to understand the simple language of the Constitution. I believe the ‘misunderstanding’ is willfull.
March 19, 2016 at 11:14 am
Merrick Garland was the lead Fed prosecutor of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City/Murrah Fed building bombing.
Clearly, the truck bomb delivered by stooge McVeigh was responsible for a mere pittance, a very small percentage, of the damage that building sustained. Much like the 9/11 WTC “attacks,” the building/bomb scene was roped off and hauled away without any serious govn’t investigation.
Merrick Garland was in charge. He is a totally corrupt and compromised left authoritarian. He’s ready to go after all those angry white male terrorists tomorrow, just like he went after patsy McVeigh.
March 19, 2016 at 4:43 pm
The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How in the crap is that not clear enough? Who makes the militia? The people. There Armed forces? The people.
Should I own a gun? yes. Do I own one? No. Can my right to own a gun be taken? F***ING try it.