Category: Supreme Court

Categories
Cult of Gun Control Gun Control Guns and self-defense statists Supreme Court

Law severely restricting the rights of Foster parents may be overturned

0 0
Read Time:1 Minute, 33 Second

Via Bearing Arms

There are restrictions on our Second Amendment right. Many of those restrictions amount to straight up infringement. In order to infringe on something, the threshold is actually very low. Illinois is not known for being a state all that friendly to gun owners. They have and continue to obstruct the law-abiding from exercising their Constitutional right. A peculiar case from 2018 out of the Prairie State was appealed to the Seventh Circuit in early 2022. The case is Miller v. Smith and involves the Millers being prohibited from keeping and bearing arms at their property because they are licensed foster caregivers. Recently the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), who’s suing on behalf of the Millers, filed their reply brief in the appeal. The SAF is suing alongside the Illinois State Rifle Association and Illinois Carry.

Here is what the law does

The law in Illinois is overreaching and bans the possession of firearms at multiple locations, including licensed daycare and foster care properties. Per the opinion from Illinois Central District Court of Springfield, the following regulation was cited:

DCFS has also promulgated the following rule regarding firearms in foster family homes

(o) Any and all firearms and ammunition shall be stored and locked up separately at all times and kept in places inaccessible to children. No firearms possessed in violation of a State or federal law or a local government ordinance shall be present in the home at any time. Loaded guns shall not be kept in a foster home unless required by law enforcement officers and in accordance with their law enforcement agency’s safety procedures.

In other words, the guns should be stored in such a manner as to render them useless in many situations where quick access to hem is crucial. Go read the whole piece at Bearing Arms

About Post Author

thedaleygator

Individualist/Writer/Blogger/Historian/Sometime pain in the ass. Unapologetic Lover of the Founders, America, the South, our Constitution. Proud descendant of numerous American and Confederate veterans. And yes, massive Gator fan. No patience for cancel culture, and the Marxists who hide behind it. Lover of good beer, good BBQ, and yes beautiful women.
thedaleygator@gmail.com
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
20 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
80 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
Categories
Cult of Gun Control Education Guns and self-defense Marxist Morons Social Justice Supreme Court

What happens when truth is no longer a value?

0 0
Read Time:2 Minute, 39 Second

To leftists, like Laurence Tribe, truth is of zero value. Winning ideological points matters, and Tribe is perfectly content to lie, if it means such a win, as Ken Masugi at American Greatness notes

A brief interview of Tribe with the Washington Post identifies some of his former students as “Barack Obama, Elena Kagan, John Roberts, Merrick Garland, Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff and Ted Cruz.” We are supposed to be impressed. But these are mostly politicians, and perhaps Tribe shouldn’t be held responsible for their flaws. But the professor is fully responsible for this whopper from the interview:

Post: Do you consider the Supreme Court to be in crisis now?

Tribe: “Yes. I have no doubt that the court is at a point that is far more dangerous and damaging to the country than at any other point, probably, since Dred Scott. And, in a way, because we even find Justice [Clarence] Thomas going back and citing Dred Scott favorably in his opinion on firearms, the court is dragging the country back into a terrible, terrible time. So I think that it’s never been in greater danger or more dangerous.” (Emphasis added.)

If that statement made issue a “WTF”? it should. Because, Thomas issued no applause or praise of Justice Taney or the Dredd Scott ruling, What Justice Thomas wrote was, well, crystal clear

But what Justice Thomas actually wrote “in his opinion on firearms” (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen) concerning Dred Scott and Taney was this mockery of Taney:  

“Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417. Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America.” (Emphasis added.)

Ah, so Thomas did not use the decision to praise Taney in any way, he uses the decision to note that even a man like Justice Taney knew that carrying arms was a component of the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet, cares not what Thomas wrote, he just wants to condemn and smear Thomas, and if that means lying like a cheap rug, well, sign Laurence Tribe up! As Masugi notes, it reveals how far down the hole of Statism leftists like Tribe are.

Thus the Tribe taunt is not simply a vulgar partisan shot but a reminder of how divided we are as a nation and how little our luminaries seem to understand its true nature. If we as a nation have forgotten John Locke’s maxim that every man belongs to himself, how can we even think about recovering the truths of the Declaration? 

About Post Author

thedaleygator

Individualist/Writer/Blogger/Historian/Sometime pain in the ass. Unapologetic Lover of the Founders, America, the South, our Constitution. Proud descendant of numerous American and Confederate veterans. And yes, massive Gator fan. No patience for cancel culture, and the Marxists who hide behind it. Lover of good beer, good BBQ, and yes beautiful women.
thedaleygator@gmail.com
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
100 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
Categories
Religion Supreme Court

Religious Liberty restored….

0 0
Read Time:1 Minute, 57 Second

Ken Masugi at American Greatness Cheers the restoration of the right to pray, yes, even in public!

The Court’s opinion in the 6-3 decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first appointee, and relied on both the free exercise and the free speech clauses of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .”

It may surprise some that the conduct protected by the decision should have ever been questioned. Joseph Kennedy, an assistant high school football coach, would briefly pray in private at the end of his team’s games, sometimes at the 50-yard line. Often players would join him, and sometimes even the staff and players of the opposing team would, too. In no instance did he require or urge anyone else to join him in prayer. 

Nonetheless, the school district felt (or hoped) his prayers might violate the establishment clause, so they asked him to cease his prayers, which had come to public attention and drawn media coverage. His attorney replied he would not, and the district fired the coach.

Justice Gorsuch hit the nail on the head, writing that..

“Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion,” Gorsuch wrote. Moreover,

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

Go read it all, Masugi, shares some of the “thoughts” that Justice Sotomayor had in her dissent. Frankly, I wonder how anyone could read the 1st amendment and NOT see the right to prayer and speech of the coach were clearly and egregiously violated. But, Sotomayor is, I imagine far more a Collectivist than an Individualist. She might even believe that prayer is only allowable if you do it in the basement of your house, where no one could overhear your conversation with God. How Marxist of her.

About Post Author

thedaleygator

Individualist/Writer/Blogger/Historian/Sometime pain in the ass. Unapologetic Lover of the Founders, America, the South, our Constitution. Proud descendant of numerous American and Confederate veterans. And yes, massive Gator fan. No patience for cancel culture, and the Marxists who hide behind it. Lover of good beer, good BBQ, and yes beautiful women.
thedaleygator@gmail.com
Happy
Happy
100 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %