Spread the love

by Wayne Simmes:

Little by little and case after case our rights under the Constitution of the United States are being eroded. The latest erosion came when the Supreme Court refused to hear a 2nd amendment case out of the State of Maryland.

This was Kolbe v. Hogan where the State of Maryland had passed a law banning Ar15, AR47 and other similar assault style semi-automatic weapons. The law had been upheld by the fourth circuit court in a 3 to 2 decision. The reasoning was that these type weapons did not meet the standard set out in the 2nd amendment because they were more suited for military weapons than home protection.


Now personally, I see nothing in the second amendment that says the right to bear arms is restricted to home defense. In fact, it says a “well-regulated militia being necessary for defense” making Maryland’s argument completely false.

But the 4th circuit did not even consider that argument.

In due time the case was referred to the Supreme Court who in the past had sided with the gun owners and against those trying to infringe upon the right to bear arms. In this case however not only did they not side with the gun owners they refused to hear the case outright.

So much for our hopes that with the addition of Judge Gorsuch we would have a court that would protect our Constitutional rights.


Now the fear has to be expressed that if assault style semi-automatic weapons can be banned, what is to stop some fear mongering lawmaker from bringing forth and passing a law outlawing all semi-automatic weapons? Many people look at the term semi-automatic in the same light as fully automatic believing that AR15 rifles are fully automatic. Semi-automatic simply means that the weapon fires one round each time the trigger is depressed. Semi-automatic weapons are in fact the most common types of firearms in use today. A great percentage of handguns are semi-automatic, the revolver having gone the way of the dinosaur.

Hunters use semi-automatic shotguns, to hunt deer, birds and small game. But those facts will be meaningless if the High Court refuses to hear the cases.

Since it is obvious that the Supreme Court is no longer able or willing to protect our right to bear arms, it is my bet that rafts of these cases will be brought forward and before you know it even bows and arrows will be banned leaving us at the mercy of the terrorists that have been brought into our country and embedded into our society.

Keep in mind that while you may be able to protect your home from a common thief with a baseball bat you certainly will not be able to protect your family when the terrorists decide to go house to house killing every human that will not bend to their will.

And keep in mind that even though we have a few on the high Court that might be sympathetic to the rights of the citizens, they are aging fast. If heaven forbid the Republican’s lose the Senate next year, and these judges start dropping by the wayside, we will be stuck with a liberal court that cares nothing for individual rights.

When you are considering draining the swamp, keep in mind that Republican swamp dwellers are more likely to defend your rights, than Democratic swamp creatures.


[totalpoll id=”6830″]

Spread the love


  1. The name ‘arms’, at the time of the drafting of the constitution meant all sort of weapons used for defense of one’s body, including armor.
    Just because ‘militia’ was used as a specific need, so was personal defense, as mentioned by the court.
    But a far more necessary need was for the procurement of food, and its protection from predators also seeking food!
    And, it is well documated that protection from a recaltrant government, more bent on subjugstion of it’s people, rather than protection of them was also a concern of the Founders, and those same people. They were not, at that time, considered ‘alarmists’ as is the epithet used today.
    Because most weapons in civilian hands are capable of taking life is a very incomplete definition of a weapon suitable for such use in any conflict against a equally capable adversary!
    Laws are to be used to establish easily understood rules of human behavior, not to be twisted and hammered into something covering a particular definition to fit one nature of crime!

Leave a Reply