According to how the Left behaves, the Law of the Land is whatever they say it is. They are like a little kid playing a game and always changing the rules so that the kid has the advantage and always wins. How does that apply to the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights? How does that apply to the activism of the Supreme Court? here are a few items for you to consider.
As Written By Colonel Allen West for The Old School Patriot:
Well, it’s not even a week since the completion of the 147th NRA Annual Meeting and Convention, and we have another chucklehead alert regarding the Second Amendment. I find it rather perplexing that the progressive, socialist, left has a hard time with reading comprehension, because, obviously, they have no idea what “shall not be infringed” means. I guess the liberal, progressive, leftists suffer from what we call “selective compliance and enforcement.” It appears the left just kinda chooses what laws they will, or will not, abide by — ya know, like sanctuary states and cities.
Here’s a thought: how is it that we have former military veterans, who took an oath “to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign, and domestic,” run as Democrats . . . progressive socialists? It seems to me that Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb is either confused or lying. He ran as a Democrat but says he is pro-Second Amendment. That’s not exactly a congruent position. But, that’s a discussion for another missive, especially as we draw closer to the midterm elections.
But, check this out, courtesy of Breitbart:
“A housing developer with multiple properties in New Jersey is warning that tenants who possess, store, or carry firearms on their developments will face a “notice to vacate.” The developer, RPM Development Group, issued a notice of the policy to all residents and that notice was acquired and published by the New Jersey Second Amendment Society. Breitbart News spoke with RPM General Counsel David Steinberg, who confirmed that the policy says, “No one will be permitted to store, or carry a gun or rifle, or any other type of firearm of any kind in the building, or on the grounds.” The notice goes on to say, “If it is discovered that you do have a firearm of any kind on this property, you will received a Notice to Cease, followed by a Notice to Vacate.” Under this policy, law-abiding tenants would be unable to carry firearms on property for defense of themselves and their families. They would also be unable to keep firearms on property for sporting/target shooting events in which they may wish to participate off-property.”
Hmm, I’m not an Ivy League-educated lawyer, but it would appear to me that the RPM Development Group is setting itself up for a lawsuit. First of all, any, and every, American that meets the legal standard has a right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. That is listed as the Second Amendment, which is the second of 10 initial amendments to our Constitution called the Bill of Rights. As well, there is something in the 14th Amendment called the “equal protection clause,” which applied to freed slaves the National Rifle Association ensured were able to exercise their Second Amendment right, as part of the Constitution, and being citizens of these United States of America.
Furthermore, there have been two landmark Supreme Court cases that have affirmed the Second Amendment. One is ten years old this year: Heller v. DC. The other came in 2010: McDonald v. Chicago, which affirmed the Second Amendment at the state and local levels of government.
Can someone explain to me how SCOTUS can establish a right? I thought the enumerated power given to the Supreme Court was to interpret the law, not establish rights.
So, I ask: who determines the law of the land? Here we have all the evidence supporting the Second Amendment, yet we have these unconstitutional actions. Consider this: in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court established same-sex marriage as the law of the land. The Supreme Court, in a clear example of judicial activism, declared that marriage is a right, and used the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection clause” as justification. Can someone explain to me how …….
THERE IS MORE TO THIS ARTICLE HERE >>>> THE OLD SCHOOL PATRIOT <<<<