Supreme Court Is Going Out of Bounds
Saying the Supreme Court is going out of bounds is an understatement. Especially, when they are trying to make changes to Second Amendment rights. These modern-day officials have a hands-on more controlling agenda in mind. They feel the need to alter the laws to their desired outcome.
The idea of the Second Amendment is to have the citizens be an alternate form of defense against foreign attackers while protecting themselves from crime closer to home. A nation of armed citizens is needed for the security of a free state. It is the right of the people to have and to carry weapons, which shall not be infringed.
In a situation where someone absolutely believed their lives were in danger and could not gather enough legal evidence to prove it, they were to be killed, which would be unlawful and would contradict any right to live. The new law would require that citizens wishing to acquire a license, first present some form of proof that exists for the permit.
The Supreme Court is going out of bounds when it takes away a person’s right to protect themselves, then making the decision about whether or not that person feels safe is a form of control that is unjust. The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and removing their rights and ability to make decisions on their own is a direct contradiction.
In a life or death situation, no paid official should be able to determine if someone is allowed to protect themselves. The law allows any citizen who feels comfortable enough to safeguard their own life, as long as there is an actual threat. They can rightfully do so if they can prove self-defense. The evidence and proof have to be honest and specifically evaluated.
A robbery that takes place in front of an armed civilian is one story, but if the robbery was happening to the civilian then the self-defense argument can be put into place because no one else inserted themselves into a dangerous situation. To have to prove to the Supreme Court whether there was any danger, big or small, is special or unique to someone who does not share the same lifestyle is unjust.
The new law makes it impractical for a regular civilian to acquire a license because the “proper cause” standard is burdensome and left to the “broad discretion” of the licensing officer. The Supreme Court is going out of bounds when adding extra steps and obstacles to prevent crime, which also, in turn, makes it harder for honest people to honestly safeguard their life.
The Supreme Court Justices usually are unsuccessful at trying to prove criminal intent, if they could the use of laws would not really be necessary. It is not possible to prove the intent of a robber or killer before they decide to rob or kill.
Even if someone robbed another person, the victim would not be able to come up with any actual and articulable proof because anyone who has to rob is not going to purposely leave any evidence that they committed a crime. It is impossible for lawyers to prove the intentions of another to The Supreme Court, nor can one ever really determine how much danger someone imposes. The people can not expect appointed officials, without the knowledge of the law, to make those types of inferences on behalf of another person. The Supreme Court is trying to appoint people to tell others they are not in enough danger to protect their right and their life whenever necessary.
Whether or not a person lives in a high crime area the right to protect themselves should never be questioned. Crime occurs on some of the busiest streets in the largest cities in the nation so the right to self-protection should never be in question. Everyone should be able to protect themselves no matter how much crime is going on around them. No one should be stripped of their right to decide for themselves how much danger their own life is in or when and where they are allowed to protect themselves.
Opinion News by Darryl Robinson
CNN Politics: Supreme Court seems poised to expand Second Amendment rights and strike down NY handgun law; by Ariane de Vogue
The New York Times: Justices’ Questions Suggest New York Gun Control Law Is Unlikely to Survive; by Adam Liptak
The Constitute Project: United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992); by James Madison
Featured and Top Image Courtesy of HolyCrap’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image Courtesy of Geoff Livingston’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License