“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war.”  

These were some of the words included in the majority opinion of the decision rendered by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

This ruling was made in a response to an appeal of the massive assault weapons ban passed in a knee jerk power grab by the liberal constituency in Maryland, after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.

Additional sections of the opinion contained the following partisan and partial verbiage from Judge Robert King:

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ M-16 rifles — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.”

NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker was quoted as saying, “It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment.”

Once again we find the courts not interpreting the law, but rather, deciding the law based on rhetoric and personal opinion.  Regardless of the side of the argument one is on, we can all agree the lines of the judicial and legislative branches of government become more and more blurred with each passing day.  Because of that, this is a dangerous precedent for the left to set, especially knowing that the GOP is taking back more and more ground in all branches of government.  You would think the left would tread lightly, and begin to pivot to the center in anticipation of a moral pulpit with which to respond politically, and win back moderates.  However, it instead seems they are digging in on what is sure to be a losing position in the long run, much akin to a screaming toddler being put down to nap.  It seems almost counter-intuitive to act this way, but then again, the left has never been known to have a proclivity for moderation.

Additionally, lets flip over another long undisturbed rock, and ask the question of where in the Constitution it says we have the right to bears arms, but only if they are for self defense, or hunting, and also that “weapons of war” are explicitly excluded.  I guess I don’t remember that part, but its been a while since eighth grade history.  

It seems that even the NRA is missing the mark by getting involved in the semantic discussion of which firearms one can consider suitable for the public to own.

We can only hope that president Trump gets his Supreme Court Justice in place, and that this happens before an appeal of this ruling to the high court (maybe even challenge the Heller decision).  Hopefully then this debate can be heard with an even and level ear.  Say what you will, but all conservative leaning judges do is interpret the law, even to the party’s disadvantage at times. Isn’t that what we all want and something we can all rally around?  Isn’t that what this country, and the foundation of freedom it is built upon, demands from its legislative branch – impartial judgement to the letter of the law?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *