Acts20.com

The repeal of the Second Amendment would not grant the Federal Government any new powers to regulate guns. It would simply mean the States have total control over the issue.Funny how the courts don't seem to object to the restrictive gun laws many liberal areas implement. So if the States completely took over this issue, things would stay pretty much as they are now. Therefore I say let's repeal the 2nd Amendment before the SCOTUS can interpret it to mean something it doesn't. If it's not in the Constitution, they can't rule on it, right?Oh wait, marriage was not in the Constitution either, was it

Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment.....

I dont want any more politicians to regulate my life or possessions. Amen

Two words: Heller and McDonald

Here's the problem. Who said the SCOTUS gets to decide? It was not until the 20the century that this magical power appeared allowing Federal Courts to get involved. Even with the addition of the 14th Amendment, it was understood that the 14th Amendment did not effect the 2nd amendment.If we accept the SCOTUS jurisdiction in the Heller and McDonald cases, then we must also accept they have the Constitutional power to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to actually outlaw private gun ownership

Who else would interpret the meaning of the Constitution? That's the entire purpose of the Supreme Court in Article III Section 2. The Constitution said SCOTUS gets to decide.Now, to the question of what if a bunch of liberals get on the bench and begin misinterpreting the plain meaning of the Second Amendment? Well, then it's time to either deal with it or find a new country to live in, because yours has gotten to a point where basic, obvious, guaranteed liberties are no longer treated as such. The Founders warned you it could happen, but we had a good run in the meantime.

Who else would interpret the meaning of the Constitution? That's the entire purpose of the Supreme Court in Article III Section 2. The Constitution said SCOTUS gets to decide.Now, to the question of what if a bunch of liberals get on the bench and begin misinterpreting the plain meaning of the Second Amendment? Well, then it's time to either deal with it or find a new country to live in, because yours has gotten to a point where basic, obvious, guaranteed liberties are no longer treated as such. The Founders warned you it could happen, but we had a good run in the meantime.But without the Supreme Court defending the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment would have already been destroyed by the States (well, some of them). Heller and McDonald are tremendous firewalls in the defense for gun liberty. Look carefully at the limited scope of cases SCOTUS is allowed to hear. It's right there in the Constitution. Also, congress can alter the court anytime it pleases. They just don't

What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts?1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 enumerates the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of parties” jurisdiction];c) Between several States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or its Citizens) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects 3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].These are the ONLY cases federal courts have permission to hear! Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority. [emphasis added] 4In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton comments on each of these enumerated objects of federal judicial authority. But here, we will consider only cases “arising under the Constitution”, which, in the words of Hamilton [which I ask you to note most carefully],…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union (2nd para) [emphasis added]Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/judicial-abuse-of-the-14th-amendment-abortion-sexual-orientation-homosexual-marriage/#G2mysbbhEB8ImvxR.99

Done. Heller and McDonald were proper cases for the Court to hear because they arose as a result of DC and Chicago unlawfully stripping their citizens of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court advocated those rights and overturned the actions of DC and Chicago/Illinois. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government