“I do think that the justices will take into account the fact that people really need more protection than they used to need,” he said. “Crime is going up dramatically, particularly in inner cities. And I do think that the need for self-defense will probably be recognized by enough justices of the Supreme Court to warrant extending Heller to open carry and concealed weapons again.”
— Sandy Fitzgerald in Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Supreme Court Won’t Overrule or Affirm Roe v. Wade
The SCOTUS decides, the lower courts ignore. What will be different this time?
The fact that SCOTUS is deciding at all whether we need to honor the 2nd amendment or not is a huge problem.
Imagine if we were having this discussion about the 1st amendment, and under what circumstances free speech and freedom of religion would be allowed.
Oh wait, we are.
Bad times. Very bad times.
Some of my fellow Democrats understand what needs to be done.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/pennsylvania-house-democrat-introduces-forced-sterilization-three-child-limit-legislation/
“The bill will force men to undergo vasectomies within 6 weeks from having their third child or their 40th birthday, whichever comes first.”
“This legislation includes a $10,000 reward to whoever snitches to the proper authority on those who have failed to submit to forced sterilization within the allotted time.”
We become more like China everyday.
Thank you Democrats/Marxists.
What an outstanding idea!
Red states can require forced sterilization of anyone suspected of being leftist scum, like tiny ‘d’ and ‘minor’… 🙂
If it serves the cause yes, until then we have many more like you first in line, besides he is an useful.. tool.
This bill will also include legal actions for unwanted pregnancies against inseminators who wrongfully conceive a child with them.
“As long as state legislatures continue to restrict the reproductive rights of cis women, trans men, and non-binary people, there should be laws that address the responsibility of men who impregnate them. Thus, my bill will also codify “wrongful conception” to include when a person has demonstrated negligence toward preventing conception during intercourse,” Rabb stated in his memorandum.
I don’t agree with what he is proposing, in fact the act of forcing sterilization should frighten anyone as a reminder of eugenics and the nastiness that followed, but I get why he is making the statement. More for show and to draw attention to a disparity and lack of responsibility than serious legislature.
“Crime is going up dramatically, particularly in inner cities. And I do think that the need for self-defense will probably be recognized by enough justices of the Supreme Court”
And this is why the entire judiciary is a complete mess. For some reason lawyers and judges seem to be deluded into thinking that rights are subject to social utility. They are not. Even Scalia was completely wrong in his Heller majority opinion. Rights are absolute, period. They are not subject to ANY limitations at all. That is what makes them rights and not privileges. Laws may only be written to punish the exercise of a right where such harms others. Yes Virginia, one CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre even when none exists. Laws do not prevent, they punish. We don’t “ban” words, which are the tools of free speech. Ergo we must not “ban” arms, of any kind, which are the tools of the 2nd.
That’s exactly right, and when constitutional ignoramuses like Biden say “no right is absolute” this is the answer.
Yeah, I’m no lawyer, but what does need have to do with it? It’s either constitutional or it isn’t. Maybe Dershowitz just knows how they think?
I don’t know how much “social utility” really plays into it when the entire system refuses to prosecute crimes, sets loose violent felons with no bail, welcomes anyone and everyone over the border, insists on race and income based rules for equities sake.
Seems more it’s simply about ever changing and arbitrary personal whims than anything else. Long winded rulings are just the intellectual supremacists way of hiding that fact and impressing the plebs into faithfully following.
Shire-man,
“Seems more it’s simply about ever changing and arbitrary personal whims than anything else.”
I think that is a minor aspect/motivation and frequently takes on the form of punishing political enemies. The primary factor which motivates politicians and bureaucrats is accumulating more wealth and power (which includes the ability to do whatever they want–placing themselves above the law).
Back to the somewhat minor whimsical aspect which is often about punishing political enemies–in addition to satisfying their obscene desires to make other people miserable, that is also an element of accumulating more power since it provides an incentive to comply rather than resist.
The US SC can longer be trusted to abide by the Constitution.
SCOTUS has not “understood” the Constitution since the marxist progs arrived on the court (a century ago).
Well said Gman.
I don’t understand why those that heat gun ownership would be concerned about the Supreme Court. After all there’s only two possible outcomes: an extremely narrow decision that onlyAddresses the issue brought to them that cannot be expanded upon or they side with the state. My personal expectation is they side with the state.
And even if the supreme court rules in favor of the Second Amendment be expected for everyone to ignore it because they can.
The Supreme Court says.
Which Supreme Court?
The one in 1821 or the one in 2021.
” The RIGHT to bear arms, Shall not be Infringed ”
Anything other then that is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately Dershowitz is NOT on the SCOTUS and with Roberts as the “NEW” swing vote nothing is a sure thing…
fortunately Dershowitz is NOT on the SCOTUS
there, fixed it.
Actually as it looks, you have 3 potential swing votes depending on the issue, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barret.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/18/we-dont-have-a-6-3-conservative-court-we-have-a-3-3-3-court/
That’s why Democrats have been quiet on the matter, they serve us.
Who’s “us”?
Criminals know the odds are citizens obey Gun Control that restrict them from exercising a Constitutional Right. All a criminal has to do is size an individual up and proceed whereas if it is a guessing game for criminals whether citizens are armed or not gives all citizens armed or not more advantage than what they had.
Of course as long as the racism and genocide history of Gun Control is kept hush hush and off the table by gutless wonders Gun Control and its baggage has standing. What a pathetic sight it is. Law abiding Americans on their knees asking a court to decide between Gun Control Rot and The Constitution of The United States.
To give Gun Control standing the court might as well provide standing for slave shacks, nooses, cross burning, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and the like. Agree or disagree Mr. Dershowitz?
Meh…Dershowitz is one of the few “good” Dim liberals. As in classical liberalism. All your whining won’t change reality. My reality won’t change. Heck a bunch of baby murdering leftards made abortion a sacrament. I don’t see that in the BOR…
Whining won’t change history even for those in the Twilight Zone.
This wasn’t particularly directed at you princess. But have at it.
We can only hope and pray they have the common sense and good judgment to figure this out even if they fail to realize the 2nd. Amendment is one that actually leaves no gray area. POTUS-CORNPOP JOE is already scheming to figure out a way for the Useless Nations to oversee (override) our 2nd. Amendment and I don’t know what impact if any this may have on a SCOTUS decision but hopefully the decision(s) turns out totally in our favor.
2 years ago I would have agreed with you. But just thinking about the liberties taken with the vote(even back against Trump and Hillary) – I think they cheated then, just not enough(my personal opinion), and I am sure that it was manipulated this time, I think anything can happen. I strongly suspect that the CCP is in bed with NWO types and neither group wants armed subjects.
The party of the working man has been bought out and they pretend to look after the no accounts in our society. While most of them do need help, they are not getting it, the Dems are paying groups to study the problem so they can just ignore it. The working man as well as the professional worker has no representation, even less than they ever had. The CCP and NWO CEOs are very happy….
Does anyone keep score on Dershowitz? He flaps his gums a lot, but how often is he correct in his prognostications?
Pay him enough and he will say what ever you want him to say.
It would be nice to have Heller extended but I’ll believe it only after I see it. Then, the USSC would have to enforce its decision by slapping down lower courts that invented ways around it.
SCOTUS is simply not trustworthy. It is a mostly a playground for supercilious egoists who see themselves way above the rights and people they are supposed to protect. Maybe they will do the right thing, maybe not. It’s all a game.
I posted the following on the NewsMax website:
I like and respect Alan and he is, unfortunately, likely right on Roe. Where I take issue with him though is his fatal description of the second as only applying to militias. He is clearly wrong on this. “What is the militia? Why it is the whole people!” The National Guard was created at the beginning of the 20th century. Apples and oranges. Yes the 2nd allows me to have a cannon. It is a common weapon. Nukes are a whole different ball game and I do not have an answer for that, except to say that the nuke argument is a diversionary tactic. it is designed to distract from the essential arguments about the rights which supersede the Constitution.
The entire collective right militia argument is nothing but a false flag. The Constitution and inclusive Bill of Rights is not, and can never be used as, a limit upon the People. It limits Government only. This was well understood by the 1939 SCOTUS in Miller. Here they correctly noted that the prefatory statement (not a clause) specifically protects weapons of efficacy to the military for the People who are the militia. The only reason they ruled against Miller was because no evidence was presented to the court that short barrel shotguns were of efficacy to the military. Yet that ruling essentially, if well argued, nullifies the entire NFA et. seq.
Truth but also Miller did not present a defense at all. Here’s the cite:
307 U.S. 174
59 S.Ct. 816
83 L.Ed. 1206
UNITED STATES
v.
MILLER et al.
No. 696.
Argued March 30, 1939.
Decided May 15, 1939.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.
Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
No appearance for appellees.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
If you read the opinion you can only draw the conclusion that SCOTUS created the whole gun control movement out of thin air. One can also go back to the Woodrow Wilson regime to read the beginning of the anti-constitutional movement. Wilson stated publicly that he was in favor of throwing it out and re-writing it to “reflect modern times” or some such nonsense.
I’ve been bothered about the militia part of the 2A for a long time, as in why the hell was that even included. The January 6 came along and I think the answer my have finally hit. So, I throw this out there for public consideration…
The Founders were totally unabashed about their distrust and disdain for the mob and mob rule. So they said OK to guns, but they didn’t want to give Constitutional sanction to the mob. Thus, the “well regulated militia”. A well regulated militia acts with a singleness of mission, a chain of command, and rules of engagement. An unregulated militia is a mob, a riot — much like what went down on January 6 (albeit without the guns, but it didn’t have to be that way). The well regulated militia part has nothing to do with individual ownership. It was directed at how all those guns were to be deployed, if they needed to be deployed at all.
Just a kernel of an idea, but I think it might have some merit.
Ummm…..it’s not, never has been, about “NEED.” So how can SCOTUS now decide We The Little Peeps’ need has risen and they decide to benevolently bestow upon the Little Ones the ability to exercise a God-given Right?? DUHsville!!!!!! or DUHshowtwitz
Alan Dershowitz has always supported the Sullivan Law. And he is more comfortable with only the police and military openly carrying guns. It was mostly white Christian soldiers who saved his family from a country that had made it illegal for his family to have guns. And he was the lawyer who defended the JDL. Who shot and blew up people including at least on Jewish person, all over this country. In the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Alan Dershowitz like the rest of the white northeastern civil rights volunteers, has always believed blacks should be disarmed.
When are the anti gun folks going to understand that those who would use a firearm to commit a crime just don’t give a damn about what laws, restrictions or regulations are enacted? All any of these anti gun/gun control laws have ever done is make life easier and safer for criminals and tyrants. No background checks or disarmament scheme has ever prevented anyone from doing evil. Nor does it prevent any government agency, or military force from committing murder at an industrial level. The worst atrocities have been by governments against their own unarmed citizens.
Sorry, but I’ll take messy freedom over safe servitude anyday.
“Killing is a matter of will, not weapons.
You cannot control the act itself
by passing laws about the means employed.”
The late Col Jeff Cooper, 1958
Handgun expert and founder of Gunsite Academy
Call me when they take up a case to eliminate qualified immunity for all but split second decision making cases.
This country is in serious trouble if we are relying on this group of nine, un-elected, unaccountable, gods-in-robes to affirm our Second Amendment rights.
Comments are closed.