not a consequence for misbehavior<\/a>, serving as nothing more than empty words that can not withstand the resilience of even the most mild of tyrannical toddlers. While some may point out that the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of gun rights in major rulings over recent years, I think the real point is that these rulings have largely been reduced to symbolic gestures or even meaningless suggestions as they have not deterred Democrats from continuing to violate the same principles over and over. \u00a0<\/p>\nInterestingly enough, justices have not yet acted upon current appeals largely involving the same issues, one being Maryland\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban and the other Rhode Island\u2019s prohibition of standard capacity magazines.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In Delaware, the ban on \u201cassault weapons\u201d allows for those firearms already owned and classified under the law to be grandfathered in while the measure prohibiting magazine capacity is being applied to devices owned before the law took effect, unlawfully forcing the disposal or confiscation of constitutionally protected private property.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Justices also rejected an appeal by Maryland Shall Issue and additional plaintiffs of a lower court ruling holding that the state\u2019s licensing law is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Maryland\u2019s 2013 law requires residents to obtain a qualification license through training, fingerprinting and background checks before they are permitted to purchase a handgun. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution uses plain text to recognize the inherent right of all American citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement. Challengers to the law cite the requirements as being too burdensome, delaying the process by \u201ca month or longer,\u201d begging the question as to whether a right delayed is truly a right. \u00a0<\/p>\n
While conservatives remain hopeful about upcoming SCOTUS cases, such as Smith & Wesson\u2019s defense against Mexico\u2019s ridiculous lawsuit accusing the company of aiding the illegal trafficking of firearms to drug cartels, and even more hopeful for a resurgence of Second Amendment rights under the Trump administration, it remains to be seen whether the high court will remain a relevant authority. With Democrats figuratively spitting in justices\u2019 faces and using their rulings as toilet paper, all without repercussion, it has become apparent that we are slipping further away from the rule of law and dangerously close to a system ruled by unchecked indifference.\u00a0 Historically speaking, a nation\u2019s answer to this question often leads to an undesirable yet unavoidable conflict. Just ask Thomas Jefferson. Hopefully, however, the country\u2019s shift with the recent presidential election will also empower the Supreme Court to back its rulings with something more than empty warnings, as we already seem to be asking ourselves if the emperor is getting a little chilly.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Photo Courtesy of Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States On January 13, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear two Second Amendment-related cases, the first being a challenge to Delaware\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d and standard-capacity magazine ban and the second covering Maryland handgun licensing requirements. As I intend to be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2973,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4474","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4474\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2973"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![<\/a>Photo Courtesy of Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\nOn January 13, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear<\/a> two Second Amendment-related cases, the first being a challenge to Delaware\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d and standard-capacity magazine ban and the second covering Maryland handgun licensing requirements. As I intend to be critical of the High Court, I offer in fairness to concede that its previously issued rulings that should have been considered by state legislation, especially in the case of Delaware, but were not. I understand the monotony of redundant legal challenges the justices have already ruled upon. However, ignoring or turning away these redundancies fails to address the real issue: lawmakers\u2019 refusal to adhere to the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\nIn the case of Delaware\u2019s ban on \u201cassault weapons\u201d and magazines with a capacity greater than 17 rounds, it is clear that such an action intends to violate Americans\u2019 Second Amendment rights in blatant protest of the 2022 standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen<\/em>. The ban follows a wilful pattern by Democrats across the country who have adopted indifference as a tactic when they disagree with the high court, so much so that Chief Justice John Roberts warned against disregarding the Supreme Court\u2019s rulings<\/a> this past December. \u00a0<\/p>\nBut what is a warning unbacked by consequence? Even in child psychology, it is understood that warnings themselves are not a consequence for misbehavior<\/a>, serving as nothing more than empty words that can not withstand the resilience of even the most mild of tyrannical toddlers. While some may point out that the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of gun rights in major rulings over recent years, I think the real point is that these rulings have largely been reduced to symbolic gestures or even meaningless suggestions as they have not deterred Democrats from continuing to violate the same principles over and over. \u00a0<\/p>\nInterestingly enough, justices have not yet acted upon current appeals largely involving the same issues, one being Maryland\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban and the other Rhode Island\u2019s prohibition of standard capacity magazines.\u00a0<\/p>\nIn Delaware, the ban on \u201cassault weapons\u201d allows for those firearms already owned and classified under the law to be grandfathered in while the measure prohibiting magazine capacity is being applied to devices owned before the law took effect, unlawfully forcing the disposal or confiscation of constitutionally protected private property.\u00a0<\/p>\nJustices also rejected an appeal by Maryland Shall Issue and additional plaintiffs of a lower court ruling holding that the state\u2019s licensing law is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Maryland\u2019s 2013 law requires residents to obtain a qualification license through training, fingerprinting and background checks before they are permitted to purchase a handgun. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution uses plain text to recognize the inherent right of all American citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement. Challengers to the law cite the requirements as being too burdensome, delaying the process by \u201ca month or longer,\u201d begging the question as to whether a right delayed is truly a right. \u00a0<\/p>\nWhile conservatives remain hopeful about upcoming SCOTUS cases, such as Smith & Wesson\u2019s defense against Mexico\u2019s ridiculous lawsuit accusing the company of aiding the illegal trafficking of firearms to drug cartels, and even more hopeful for a resurgence of Second Amendment rights under the Trump administration, it remains to be seen whether the high court will remain a relevant authority. With Democrats figuratively spitting in justices\u2019 faces and using their rulings as toilet paper, all without repercussion, it has become apparent that we are slipping further away from the rule of law and dangerously close to a system ruled by unchecked indifference.\u00a0 Historically speaking, a nation\u2019s answer to this question often leads to an undesirable yet unavoidable conflict. Just ask Thomas Jefferson. Hopefully, however, the country\u2019s shift with the recent presidential election will also empower the Supreme Court to back its rulings with something more than empty warnings, as we already seem to be asking ourselves if the emperor is getting a little chilly.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Photo Courtesy of Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States On January 13, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear two Second Amendment-related cases, the first being a challenge to Delaware\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d and standard-capacity magazine ban and the second covering Maryland handgun licensing requirements. As I intend to be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2973,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4474","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4474\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2973"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Supreme-Court-Justices-2024.jpeg\"){kind=link}