There are a few things in life that I am absolutely uncompromising on.

When I say uncompromising, I mean I will not budge and will no longer vote for anyone who does not also believe what I believe on at least a  few major issues.

One of them is the Second Amendment. If you are a regular reader, this will come as no surprise. A candidate has no chance with me unless he or she can prove that he or she is an ardent protector of my God-given right to own and carry a weapon.

So imagine my surprise and disgust when we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to leave a bogus New Jersey law intact, limiting a U.S. citizens’ Constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home.

The law in New Jersey states that one must have a “justifiable need” to carry a handgun in public. Last I checked, the Second Amendment  is exactly ONE sentence, separated by 3 commas. The words “justifiable need” are not part of that ONE sentence.

What the heck is wrong with the Supremes? Are we the only ones in this country capable of reading and understanding plain English, which is the language  in which the U.S. Constitution was written?

Are we the only ones capable of doing even the most rudimentary research to discover what the founders “original intent” was – how they themselves felt about guns and the right to “Bear” them?

Now it’s not that the Supremes ruled that the unconstitutional New Jersey law was okay. I would have pitched a fit, but at least I’d give them an “A” for actually making a decision. No, the spineless Supremes just simply refused to hear the case.

But it is really the 3 Judge Panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who should be verbally slapped around. Any other slapping around would be bad and uncalled for.

2 of the 3 judges ruled in favor of the restrictive New Jersey law stating that even if the Second Amendment does apply to outside the home, the law is still valid.
WHAT??? There is no more obvious anti-gun bias than that. Why don’t they just also say, “And by the way – we know there is supposed to be freedom of speech, but if a State wants to pass a law limiting that, for conservatives only, we’ll say that is valid also.”

I guess it’s easier to just make law from the bench that have to go all the way back to the founding and look it up.

Read More:  http://commonconstitutionalist.com/