How Judges Ignore Law and the
Constitution on the Right to Arms

By Dean Weingarten. November 20, 2019
Article Source

For the last 50 years, I have been hearing or reading versions of this argument:

The Second Amendment is clear. All we have to do is bring a case before the court(s) and we win. Why doesn't the NRA, local lawyer, local defendant or whoever, just push a case forward? The law is clear!

When I was young and naive, I wondered the same thing. Why wasn't the NRA bringing a Second Amendment case before the courts, and specifically, to the Supreme Court?

A more general question is: How do judges routinely escape consequences when violating their oaths of office; when implementing their preferred policy instead of enforcing the law? How are they able escape consequences when they do this instead of enforcing the U.S. Constitution and state protections of the right to keep and bear arms?

Men are not perfect. Men will always be tempted to abuse power. Men will always be tempted to accumulate power for their personal benefit. If men were perfect, we would not need government. Because they are not perfect, we need limits on governmental power.

The designers and writers of the Constitution set up a system to limit governmental powers through checks and balances inside and outside the government. The legislature has power to set up courts and impeach judges; the President has power to appoint judges; Judges have power to judge cases, which involves an intrinsic ability to interpret the law, as written by the legislature. .....

"Judges should not invalidate law because of the outcome of the law. They should only invalidate law if a particular law violates basic principles of law or Constitutional principles. Progressive theory holds that judges should always judge the law by the outcome of the law, in particular, as it affects the Progressive agenda. "


Back to Top