Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: SCOTUS Cert denied Friedman v Highland Park. Thomas, Scalia dissent

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin

    SCOTUS Cert denied Friedman v Highland Park. Thomas, Scalia dissent

    Begins page 12/17

    i was reminded to post this by ThinkProgress' Ian Millheiser' breathless criticism
    Justice Thomas Picked Today, Of All Days, To Call For More Access To Assault Rifles
    If TRUMP 2016 loses then I will shrug off my WHITE MAN'S BURDEN and leave the world to the Dindus and Done Nuffins. Read and understand Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a prescription for the future. TRUMP 2016

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Somewhere along the way the gun grabbers have crossed the line between any benefit of the doubt on honest disagreement about what the 2A means, or what effect private ownership of guns has on crime, to just blatant lies. There is nary a story about guns these days but what some gun-hating commenter claims that "nobody wants to take your guns".

    They say this as if the 1994 federal ban on some guns and on normally sized magazines never happened; as if politicians and pundits up and down the chain didn't want it extended and made permanent; as if they haven't called to reinstate it; and as if a gaggle of local and State level variants of that ban were not in effect even today.

    But, maybe better not to have the SCOTUS rule on the deliberately and deceptively misnamed "assault rifles" until after we can get one of the leftist hoplophobes replaced by someone a little more in the center, at least. No ruling is better than a ruling that permits the blatant infringement of our RKBA based on cosmetic features.

    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

    US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Highland Park IL Semi-Auto and Ammo Ban

    This event marks the pivotal point between a Constitutionally-minded Supreme Court and one guilty of dereliction of duty.

    The city of Highland Park, Illinois, banned ownership of various semi-automatic weapons, as well as a ban on ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

    In response, Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association took them to task. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, who DENIED hearing the case, in direct violation of their Constitutional mandate (i.e. NOT OPTIONAL) to do so.

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering written dissent after the denial, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. “The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions,” Thomas said. “There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake.”

    Highland Park's ban remains un-Constitutional. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's dereliction of duty, ALL civil officers, law-enforcement officers, and U.S. citizens remain obligated to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

    Put simply, by passing such a grossly un-Constitutional law that blatantly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the city of Highland Park, Illinois became the "domestic enemy" about which our Founding Fathers warned.

    Far more sinister, however, by refusing to hear the case, as their Constitutional mandate clearly requires, the U.S. Supreme Court has become the "domestic enemy," as well.

    Our response as individuals through society remains the same:

    1. If you're a citizen, you are under no obligation to follow an un-Constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court correctly ruled such years ago.

    2. If you are a law enforcement officer, regardless of level (local, county, state, or federal), you have a duty to the people, as clearly stated in your oath of office, to refuse to enforce any un-Constitutional law. Contrary to popular misconception, along with the media's blithering idiocy, the Supreme Court is NOT the final arbitrator as to the Constitutionality of a law. WE ARE. As Abraham Lincoln rightfully said, we are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people." When our government goes astray, as it clearly has in this case, it is up to us, We the People, to set things right and restore our government to its Constitutionally-mandated course of behavior at all levels.

    3. If you are a civil officer, particularly if you are a legislator, take note. Know the Constitution. FOLLOW the Constitution. If you fail, then pack your bags, as We the People WILL NOT TOLERATE your anti-American behavior.

    4. If you are a military officer, you should already know the above and be fully versed in your sworn duties to the U.S. Constitution, regardless of whatever orders you might receive to the contrary.
    The 1st protects the 2nd, and the 2nd protects the 1st. GET THIS OR LOSE IT ALLl: 27-2=0. Our 2A is THE bellwether, and ain't none finer: Islamic Reality. Our Founding Fathers on Church and State. PC=ZERO.

  4. #4
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Does IL State law/constitutional have a precedence clause over towns? Reading about daily slaughterhouse of Chicago I guess not.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    Does IL State law/constitutional have a precedence clause over towns? Reading about daily slaughterhouse of Chicago I guess not.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    All state laws control over town laws that conflict. Home rule towns in IL can pass various laws too.

    So the law passed does not conflict in IL.

    Anyone who thinks that SCOTUS would hear any significant case in our lifetime is going to be in for a disappointment. The Heller and McDonald cases were not great decisions ~ they could have spelled out things much better. Not that a SCOTUS decision actually changes or highlights or need to highlight our rights. Only to limit the gov't in suppressing these rights. And its decisions clearly do not mean much...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts