There is a case before the Supreme Court that not only could define gun ownership for decades to come, but also potentially be the first shot of a civil war.
The case is Friedman v. City of Highland Park. Dr. Arie Friedman is a pediatrician who also happens to be a law abiding gun owner. He purchased a number of semi-automatic firearms legally.
In 2013, his hometown of Highland Park, Illinois turned him into a felon by banning a number of types of firearms that he owned. No, the suburb of Chicago wasn’t particularly violent. They just wanted to ban semi-automatic rifles to test how far they can go.
Dr. Friedman refused to go quietly. He refused to just hand over his lawfully purchased property.
Three times the Supreme Court has kicked the can down the road on this case. The Justices have conferenced and for the past month, the Court has simply refused to announce whether it was taking the case or not.
That means that there are Justices actively trying to figure out which of their colleagues are on their side. Neither side wants to bring this forward if they know they don’t have the numbers to win.
We will know tomorrow where the court stands, specifically whether they are willing to let the City of Highland Park’s so-called “assault weapon” ban stand or whether the Supreme Court is going to hear the case.
Either way, it is ludicrous that our Second Amendment rights will be decided by 9 unelected men and women. When the founders wrote “shall not be infringed” into the Bill of Rights, they were talking about the Judiciary too!
Friedman v. Highland Park is one of the most ridiculous cases you will ever read. At the Appellate level, even though the prosecution argued that banning semi-automatic firearms would have no affect on crime, the liberal judges on the panel affirmed that as long as the gun ban would make people think they’re safe, then the city has the right to enact it.
“If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety,” the opinion explains. The gun grabbers are just so stupid.
Forget about the real world… A constitutional violation was justified because it theoretically made people feel safer.
Judge Easterbrook, writing for the 7th Circuit Court, also made a ridiculous argument in originally upholding the ban.
“The features prohibited by Highland Park’s ordinance were not common in 1791. Most guns available then could not fire more than one shot without being reloaded.”
I wonder… did he write that decision using a quill and ink? Did he use a horse and carriage to disseminate it? No.
Arguing that the 2nd Amendment only protects technology available in the 18th century is ludicrous. If that logic was expanded, then the 1st Amendment wouldn’t apply to anything written on the internet and the 4th Amendment wouldn’t protect your digital documents.
No, time and time again these other Constitutional rights have been found to apply to modern technologies. On top of that, the 2008 Heller ruling specifically says that the 2nd Amendment is not subject to a 18th Century technology test.
If the Supreme Court allows this ban to stand, then it would open the door to bans like this all around the country.
That is unacceptable!
Listen, I want a favorable Supreme Court ruling just as much as you do. But we cannot leave this up to chance.
Right now, 9 unelected judges are deciding whether to allow this ludicrous ruling to stand.
Are you willing to leave your constitutional right up for debate like this? I know I’m not... There are tens of millions of semi-automatic firearms that are owned by law-abiding Americans. The AR-15 is quite literally the most popular rifle in the United States.
If the Supreme Court rejects this case, or rules against it, then it will set off a string of anti-gun rulings around the country. This could lead to the biggest gun ban in history and possibly even the start to a civil war.
As I said earlier, when the Founders wrote that the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” they were talking about the Judiciary just as much as a tyrannical Executive!