Supreme Court Craps on Bill of Rights

The Implications Are Far-Reaching

Ken Pealock

6/27/20243 min read

On June 21st, the Supreme Court once again crapped on the 2nd and the 10th Amendment by upholding a federal law banning domestic abusers from owning guns. The implications are far-reaching.

In typical fashion, the Supreme Court ignored the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment that prohibits the government from enacting federal firearm laws in the first place. Instead, they harken back to their bullshit decision in the 2022 New York versus Bruen ruling.

The Bruen OPINION said that firearm laws which violate the Bill of Rights are just fine. They will not be considered unconstitutional so long as they are, quote: "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation". Close quote.

So, in other words, the Supreme Court relies on historical tradition instead of the Constitution they swore to uphold. Why don’t the Supreme Court justices admit they use personal opinions to override constitutional restraints?

The case, by the way, involved a Texas man named Zackey Rahimi who had been involved in five shootings between 2020 and 2021. Rahimi pleaded guilty to the federal crime of possessing guns while subject to a restraining order, but an appeals court threw out his conviction. Their ruling was that possessing a gun under such circumstances is an "outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."

The appeals court was simply following the Court’s ruling in the Bruen decision. But the Supreme Court twisted its own Bruen ruling into a pretzel to uphold this unconstitutional possession law. Chief Twister Justice Roberts said the appeals court erred by looking for a "historical twin" to the regulation, rather than a "historical analogue."

Excuse me?

To his credit, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, accusing the other justices of “mixing and matching historical laws.” He called it a “regulatory blank check” that allows the government to disarm its citizens.

Thomas wrote that the Court’s ruling means the Government need only find a historical law with a comparable justification to validate modern disarmament regimes. As a result, historical laws fining certain behavior could justify completely disarming a person for the same behavior.”

This is the same Supreme Court that upholds laws banning the possession of firearms by convicted felons, regardless of whether it was a violent felony or not. There is no “historical tradition, historical twin, or historical analogue” for this restriction.

The right to self-defense is a basic right to life which no government can abrogate with firearm laws. A simple tax error or the commission of a felony you were not aware of can disarm you and your entire family. And since a firearm owned by a family member constitutes “constructive possession” of a firearm by you, a felon's entire household is disarmed and defenseless.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, summed up this outrageous crapping on Americans. He said, “Zackey Rahimi is a dangerous individual already behind bars for real crimes – and that’s where he should be. However, this ruling will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence. So for those people to lose their enumerated rights, even for a temporary period of time, is a disgrace. If someone is dangerous, charge them with a real crime, convict them in a court of law, and get them out of society.”

I agree with Eric Pratt. The federal law in question didn’t stop Rahimi from getting a firearm. It’s a shame the moronic anti-gun protestors outside the Supreme Court can’t understand that criminals don’t obey gun laws. Their signs are effectively saying, ‘Down with liberty and self-defense, give us slavery and make us defenseless.’

Domestic violence is certainly a problem, but focusing on the tools used is not solving the problem. Rahimi should have been locked up for 20 years for his first act of violence, and anyone in an abusive relationship should end it immediately.

In conclusion, what we are going to see is more gun raids where federal and local police shoot their way into people’s homes to enforce unconstitutional firearm laws. The courts already allowed federal agents to get away with the mass murder of innocents at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and hundreds more. And by no means have we seen the end of gestapo-like gun raids.

Copyright 2024 by Ken Pealock

Consider supporting my feeble efforts at exposing government corruption by purchasing a book at:

Or by making a small donation or as an Associate Publisher at:

Or by following and subscribing to my video channels at RUMBLE: