Not lawyers, just liars

I saw this posted over at Everytown’s Facebook Page:

Lets look at that last sentence again.

We’d like to know if Judge Gorsuch is committed to the current understanding of the Second Amendment, or will he threaten our fundamental gun safety laws?

I’d like to know what color the sky is in the world that Everytown lives in.

Judge Gorsuch is a believes in Constitutional originalism and is a “textualist.”  In a nut shell, originalism or textualism is a legal philosophy in which judges focus only on the words written in the Constitution and try to understand what the Founders meant when they wrote our foundational document.

Like [the man whose seat he’d assume, the late Justice Antonin] Scalia, Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism — meaning that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written — and a textualist who considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision.

Critics say that those neutral considerations inevitably lead Gorsuch to conservative outcomes, a criticism that was also leveled at Scalia.

Taking Gorsuch’s textualism into account, what “current understanding of the Second Amendment” is Everytown talking about?

The watershed moment in modern American gun rights was Heller vs. The District of Columbia which held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Two years later, the Supreme Court doubled down in McDonald vs. Chicago.

McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe.

In a very short time, the Supreme Court delivered a one-two punch for gun rights.

Some people just can’t accept that reality.

Too bad for Phil White, SCOTUS dealt with just that issue in Heller.

   (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

         (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

  We are the militia and we have the right to keep and bear arms.  That has nothing to do with a commissioned uniform service.

Gun rights have been winning in the high court.

If Gorsuch is “is committed to the current understanding of the Second Amendment” he is committed expanded gun rights and individual freedom.  There is nothing in the current understanding of the Second Amendment that preserves gun safety.  Everytown is delusional.

And so are their supporters.

That is just a little bit unhinged.  Looking at Judge Gorsuch’s opinions on the restraint of government and individual rights, this man is a hero.  I guess Gorsuch only threatens the very existence of Everytown’s brand of petty tyrants.

Because if they can’t win on ideas, there is always mob terrorism.

Everything that Everytown believes is antithetical to the concept of individual rights.  They live in a world where the right of the nanny state supersedes your Constitutional right to … anything.  How else to these people get it into their heads that there is a “hate speech exemption” to the First Amendment.

They hate your freedom and are wrong about the Constitutionality of gun rights.

But what else is new?

4 Replies to “Not lawyers, just liars”

  1. Damn, they sure love their absurd hysterical rhetoric, seeing demons where there are none.

    A recent Slate piece somehow made Gorsuch anti-LGBT based on an old quote that had (and has) nothing to do with harming LGBT interests. The commenters rightfully reamed the article on this. “SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch’s Reasoning on Speech Should Concern LGBTQ People” —


    1. That article was the most inane drivel I’ve read in Slate this month.

      Arguing that “I Amy not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” is the hateful ramblings of a Right Wing ideologue is insane. It’s the principle on which the First Amendment was based.

      God these Columbia liberals are deranged.


  2. You notice the misquote of the 2nd amendment by whoever the hell Phil White is?: “In order that there be a trained and well regulated militia…?

    That’s the willing ignorance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they so openly and lovingly display.

    Either they don’t care that they’ve been influenced by anti-civil rights propagandists, the agenda of their political narrative will simply not allow them to research anything that might put the lie to it, they’re stupid, or they’re nothing but sock puppet accounts.

    Now-a-days, it’s simply too hard to tell.



Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .