Federal judge blasts the Supreme Court for its Second Amendment opinion
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 1 month ago
A federal judge based in Mississippi has released a scorching order expressing frustration with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment opinion issued last summer and ordered the Justice Department to brief him on whether he needs to appoint an historian to help him decipher the landmark opinion.
The opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen changed the framework judges must use to review gun regulations. Going forward, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a gun law could only be justified if it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Judge Carlton Reeves – who is considering a case concerning a federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms – said he is not sure how to proceed.
“This court is not a trained historian,” Reeves wrote in an order released last week.
“The justices of the Supreme Court, as distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians,” he continued.
“And we are not experts in what white, wealthy and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” he said.
The Bruen decision, he said, requires him to “play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”
Well if you haven’t been looking to the historical context, what have you been doing with your decisions? And don’t conflate your own ignorance with that of the Justices.
So here are some suggestions for you. Read the primary source literature – such as the writings of the founders themselves, and also the newspapers of the era. I think you’ll find that free men were allowed to possess firearms, that rapists, murderers and kidnappers were punished with death (as they should have been), and that there wasn’t generally a belief in the rehabilitative power of imprisonment. So a man who is convicted today of assault and battery with intent to kill, for example, is likely to have been put to death in Colonial times even if he would be released today. Much of this is a problem of our own creation.
Then after studying the primary literature, study the secondary source literature. You can learn all about American history, like you should have done in your “education.”
Then maybe you won’t be a dummy.
On November 2, 2022 at 10:02 pm, PGF said:
To the judge, if the felon has paid full restitution, then his rights should be restored. If he hasn’t paid full restitution, then why are we discussing this? If he’s not redeemable, then why is he still alive?
America needs to bring back the principle of restitution, which was slowly eroded and then increasingly by avalanches since the 1960s. Restitution is what the Bible calls for; it was historically foundational to western law and in America until about 50 or 60 years ago. Even muslims and east Asians practice restitution as a principle of law.
On November 2, 2022 at 10:07 pm, Herschel Smith said:
As I’ve indeed observed before. Retribution and restitution.
Slavery is the remedy for theft until paid three fold as prescribed in the Holy Writ.
Imprisonment has no redemptive or rehabilitative power.
Only the Holy Spirit can do that.
On November 2, 2022 at 10:34 pm, Frank Clarke said:
What he’s saying (net) is that the justice system is so badly broken, it’s making it hard for him to deal with other issues.
That IS a problem…
On November 3, 2022 at 4:53 am, RAJ said:
This (son of belial) was the trial judge in the Dobbs case who chastised the plaintiffs for bringing their case and ruled against them. On appeal, Judge Ho then castigated him for being disrespectful to the plaintiffs when the Supreme Ourt had said both sides deserved respect. Of course, SCOTUS smacked him down big time in Dobbs.
He is nothing but an ignorant, uneducated, affirmative action social justice warrior media darling with a lifetime federal appointment. God help any parties whose case he’s assigned to hear.
On November 3, 2022 at 6:00 am, Joe Blow said:
I agree with Frank, its broken beyond repair at this point. I like the jib of PGF’s sail, too. Sadly, that would require a moral and upstanding populous. This disparate nature of what each clan considers retribution is the problem. Can’t impose islamic rules on a Christian fairly, nor vice-versa.
Its all just hyperbole however, the judge let loose a tell. He is a racist. How can I tell?
““And we are not experts in what white, wealthy and male property owners …”
And there you have it. CRT in the courts.
On November 3, 2022 at 6:35 am, Wes said:
My impression from the cheap seats is simply “Hunh… research. This is what you get paid the big bucks for. Nowhere is it written that whenever you’re into the “too hard” category a bunch of super-ferret law clerks will swoop in to save your lazy butt. Now crack the books dummy.”
On November 3, 2022 at 6:35 am, June J said:
Judge appointed by Obama…nuff said.
On November 3, 2022 at 7:22 am, ragman said:
Affirmative action at its finest.
On November 3, 2022 at 1:57 pm, Rivenshield said:
>“And we are not experts in what white, wealthy and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” he said.
Yes we are you stupid arrogant son of a bitch. They wrote it all down in the user’s guide.
On November 3, 2022 at 8:37 pm, Chas said:
Reeves Should stop whining about skin color and read the Federalist Papers. That will give the knuckle head guidance…