Judge Reminds Us of the #1 Reason We Own Guns

Judge Reminds Us of the #1 Reason We Own Guns

Judge Reminds Us of the #1 Reason We Own Guns

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is known for being extremely liberal. And it should come as no surprise that many of the Ninth Circuit districts are in the state of California.

In fact, when I was in the police academy years ago I had to take many legal classes to learn the law. I remember the lawyer teaching these classes calling the Ninth Circuit “the circuit where all the idiot decisions get made.”

One of those decisions was made years ago. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual the right to bear arms. Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it does.

But here’s the reason I tell you about the Ninth Circuit:

As the Court majority ruled that individuals did not have a right to bear arms, here is what one of the judges wrote in dissent.

“All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Well, there’s not much to say after that. The judge said it brilliantly. I enjoy shooting just as much as anyone, but I don’t forget the real reason I have firearms. And after reading the Judge’s words it still amazes me there are people in this country who are anti-gun and who think “it could never happen here.”

Maybe the next time you run across one of these people you should give them a copy of the Judge’s words… or you should tell them to thank you because it’s your guns and mine that keeps intact their freedom to spout their opposing views.

, ,

  • Joe Sobotka

    Right On!

  • Like many others, I have the interesting perspective of having learned about The Constitution and the value of firearms because I was required by the federal government to demonstrate proficiency with small arms periodically while a federal employee serving as active duty military for many years. Little compares with visiting other countries aboard a US warship to encourage a deep appreciation for the form of government provided to this country in the late 18th century and the need to protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Presently, the greatest threat seems to be in the District of Corruption itself and coastal state legislatures who clearly would prefer that their power be absolute rather than contingent upon the consent of the governed.

  • ChicagoGunSmith

    Do you happen to have a link to the text of this judge? I would like to use this information in future blog posts and debates with anti gunners. Thanks!

    • schmoey

      I agree that this judge’s opinion is worth bookmarking and using in the future.
      Unfortunately, Jason never responds to any comments or questions.
      Or at least I have never seen one.

      I believe it is because some of the comments are critical of him and he doesn’t want to be bothered defending his opinions, beliefs or methods, JMO.

      So please do not hold your breath waiting for him to provide you with a link.

    • Christopher Griffin

      The source…. Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

  • Mike Brickman

    Hi Jason…Great article as usual…No disagreement here…Just a fine point…

    You write… “The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual the right to bear arms. Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it does.”

    If the Ninth did rule this they would be technically correct, since the right of self defense and the necessary corrollary of bearing arms is a grant to every human being by G_d as our basic human rights, and originates from our creation…The Bill of Rights affirms and is supposed to protect these our G_d given rights…

    My point? Hence the full court press by Progressives to remove all reference to our Creator from the public arena, and erase Him from our minds…

    Remove G_d, and the source of our rights is also removed…Our inalienable rights become simple privleges to be granted (and taken) by government at their will and convenience…

    I understand where you were going and you made your point well; and in the interests of being concise, sometimes details are omitted because the details were not the point of the article…

    Just wanted to point out the source of our rights and remind everyone they come from G_d…Keep up the fight…

    • Jarhead6541

      Those of us who do not invoke the supernatural to explain or deal with everyday happenstance do rely on the 2A to cement our natural born rights. In our view, spirits and magic are not a realistic argument for any topic, much less one so important to our freedom. Believe what you will. Some of us would prefer not to indulge the unknown or the unproven in a matter that is so utterly serious to all of us.
      BTW, This is not meant to insult believers.

      • Spiro Agnew

        *BTW, This is not meant to insult believers.*

        …but it did.

        • stratus41298

          If you were insulted by that then you should have read the post he replied to.

          • Spiro Agnew

            I did.

          • Amber Collier

            like Larry implied I am taken by surprise that any one able to make $6295 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this site w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

        • aterhaar

          I’m a believer, and I’m not insulted.

          The point Mike Brickman is trying to say that if our rights didn’t come from God, then they have to have come from man. If they can be given by man, then they can be taken by man (there’s nothing special about them).

        • Cyberats

          Let’s insult believers, they insult us daily (except most Zen & Buddhists).

      • silentfor56years

        What YOU believe matters not.
        It is what the Founders believed and is the foundation of all rights.It is so important to the anti gun progressives that they must eliminate God to “progress” to the next step.

        To dismiss it as “spirits and magic are not a realistic argument for any topic” shows that you have already been manipulated by them and in your case they are winning. (and the tone does seem insulting)

        The full court press by Progressives to remove all reference to our Creator from the public arena, and erase Him from our minds is a definite and real argument for them and is the linchpin to their plan to “update and modernize the Constitution so we can progress.

        • BeGe1

          The only reference to god whatsoever in the constitution is in the date, which says “in the year of our lord” when giving the year, which was the common way to reference the date system at the time, no different from when we write A.D.

          Our rights are our rights. Stating that that holds true whether there is a god involved or not is hardly evidence that those that would take rights away are “winning”. If anything it would be the opposite, a show that religious and secular people can believe in constitutional rights and unite behind them.

      • J.r. Bomber

        Thank you Jarhead6541 well said. Referring to and invisible sky dwelling entity does not help our case and only hurts it. God did not write the constitution and bill of rights thankfully especially when you consider his dictations to the Muslims, Jim Jones, and others.

        • Jarhead6541

          Right on, Bomber. Good to know others feel a more substantive debate is based on facts and evidence, not myth and imagination.

      • Cyberats

        Let’s call them Natural Birthrights. Sounds good to me. Semper Fidelis

    • Harvey

      Wow Mike, you said it all — thanks for letting know there is intelligent life on this planet.

      Harvey B

    • Cyberats

      Paine went on to give his opinion of religion:
      “I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
      But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
      I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
      All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
      “An unjust composition never fails to contain error and falsehood. Therefore an unjust connection of ideas is not derived from nature, but from the imperfect composition of man. Misconnection of ideas is the same as misjudging, and has no positive existence, being merely a creature of the imagination; but nature and truth are real and uniform; and the rational mind by reasoning, discerns the uniformity, and is thereby enabled to make a just composition of ideas, which will stand the test of truth. But the fantastical illuminations of the credulous and superstitious part of mankind, proceed from weakness, and as far as they take place in the world subvert the religion of REASON, NATURE and TRUTH.”
      The founding of the United States of America took place in 1787 with the signing of the Constitution, which is a purely secular document. In relation to religion the Constitution states:
      Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
      The Bill Of Rights was quickly amended to the Constitution in order to protect the rights of citizens because the original Constitution primarily just defined the powers of government. The third Article of the Bill of Rights (which became the first amendment) states:
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
      There is often debate about what exactly the First Amendment means, however, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson made clear that the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a “wall of separation” between Church and State in order to protect individuals’ right of conscience:
      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
      There are four references to a deity found in the Declaration of Independence, which was primarily co-authored by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, both friends of Thomas Paine. Those phrases are: “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge,” and “Divine Providence.” Specifically, the Declaration starts out:
      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
      The Declaration of Independence clearly asserts earthly authority, the words “Laws of Nature” are even capitalized. In addition to reading the usage of the word God in context, it is also important to understand the Declaration in its own historical context. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin was a self-declared Deist and it was he who made the final edits to the document.
      When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
      – Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
      My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.
      – Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793
      History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
      — President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
      Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
      -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
      If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
      — President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
      Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
      We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
      – President Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)
      If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
      – James Madison; Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785
      Furthermore, in 1797, in an attempt to establish peaceful relations with Muslims off the Northern Coast of Africa (an attempt that failed and led to the Barbary Wars), the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the Senate. Article 11 of the treaty states:
      As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

  • I would like a source document with proper citation for the quote. Without that provenance it is more akin to “I heard from this guy Jason that a judge said…”

    • Christopher Griffin

      The source… Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

  • stagarms

    Logic and common sense is lost on most libs. They will never grasp these concepts. They were the first to collaborate w/ the Nazis. There will always be a class of “libs” that live in an alternate reality. Unfortunately, others pay the price for their foolishness.

    • stratus41298

      Its not really a liberal thing. Its a genetically coded part of everyone to assume that in a group of people there will always be someone to defend others. Its called the normalcy bias. Insulting one party or the other simply gives power to those who want us to have none.

  • FireFighterChen

    All right…but here’s the real question…how much reasonable regulation would you be okay with? I still can’t own military grade weapons. Yes I could hold off for a while like the Jews…but I still wouldn’t consider that winning if I died in the end because I was not well regulated with the right tools.

    • cojo

      When one uses terms like “reasonable regulation”, you are playing into the anti-gunners’ game and allowing them to control the debate/narrative.

    • Roger

      Why are our government
      officials (who serve us), or other second
      amendment supporters, debating what
      infringements can be put on our
      second amendment right. They do not have that right! Our founding fathers
      declared, when establishing our Constitution, that We The People have the
      inherent, natural, unalienable, uninfringeable, right to bear arms. And in
      their writings declared it was for our protection against an oppressive, or
      tyrannical government. If We The People do not stand up and declare our liberties,
      we might as well lie down and cross our arms over our chest. For We The People
      and Our Country will surely die.


  • Tugboat

    Great article and a reminder to all of us why we must remain vigilant in the cause of preserving the 2nd Amendment

  • asoro

    Logic and common sense is lost on most libs minds, they are only interested in there way of suppressing the people for there own gain. And there is no limit they will go to do this, Right now today is the closest we have been to a tyranny Gov. since we pushed the English out in 1778. And kept them out in 1812. If we dont wake up as a country we will be facing this kind of problem again, right now owning our guns is more important to our freedom in many many yr’s. don’t let them get there hands on them. If we lose our guns then you will see what kind of gov. we really have right now. You think things are bad!! you haven’t seen nothing until that comes to pass.stand tall and stand together more than ever.our freedoms depend on it………………All this crap going on right now in DC. they will all get away with it for the most part, someone lower on the ladder will take the fall for these things so they can keep them away from -you know who!!!

  • pda726

    Can anyone answer this for me?

    We have a “Bill of
    Rights” that were the first ten constitutional amendments, and these rights were written in response to calls from several states for
    greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, and lists specific
    prohibitions on governmental power.

    We have “rights” that are guaranteed to us by the US Constitution, and our
    government is expressly prohibited by the
    constitution from denying these rights. Can anyone explain to me, why we need a
    permit in order to have access to liberty that already belongs to us?

    dictionary definition of the word “Permit”
    1. to allow to do something: Permit me to explain.
    2. to allow to be done or occur: The law does not permit the sale of such drugs
    .3. to tolerate; agree to: a law permitting Roman Catholicismin England.
    4. to afford opportunity for, or admit of: vents to permit the escape of gases. verb (used without object)
    5. to grant permission; allow liberty to do something.
    6. to afford opportunity or possibility: Write when time permits.
    7. to allow or admit (usually followed by of ): statements that permit of no denial

    In contrast, driving a vehicle is not a “Right” but a “Privilege” and as such is
    subject to legal restrictions and rules. You need a license. In order to get
    one you must pass the legal requirements, citizenship, age, know and obey the
    traffic laws, and pay for licensing and plates, renewals, etc.

    It seems to me, that our elected officials have been in violation of their oath of office. They have been denying our 2nd amendment rights. There is no telling how many lives have been lost because citizens have been unable to defend themselves. These same elected officials elevate themselves beyond their authority by exempting themselves from the laws they impose upon us. Then they have the audacity to grant themselves taxpayer funded armed security.

    Definition of CIVIL

    : the nonpolitical
    rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty
    guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the
    Constitution and by acts of Congress

    The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.

    • UpChuck.Liberals

      It’s not that hard really. The Left has been trying to re-write the definitions of words for decades. You are not capable of making your own decisions and must have much wiser people tell you how and what you may do. Now, please report to the nearest re-education camp. If you don’t know the location of the closest one please as any DHS neighborhood warden.

      • pda726

        Yeah, knew that, was hoping for someone to tell me we have enough legal grounds to tar & feather them all.

  • Justven

    Why do we need a permit? And “Freedoms vs. Rights?

    It is interesting language when you read the U. S. Supreme Court cases and words they use in them. Freedoms is one cache word used more often as opposed to Rights. Rights can at times be government given from its usage. So I try to be in the habit of using the word Freedoms. There was also a court case for example where the S.C. wrote in effect “it is observe to think one has to give up one Freedom in order o enjoy another Freedom!”

    Another item of interest is from the 133 U.S. Congress, we have a congressman who placed on the congressional record his statements about March 10 1933 in which our resident back then issued two Executive Orders that day. The first one was in secret and it Suspended the United States Constitution. The next one ordered the media to keep totally secret about the first EO or face Treason Charges for revealing its implementation.

    Another point, Nixon is responsible for the taking gold and silver out of circulation in the nation! SO, where does this leave the “states”? Or another way of asking the question is “What Venue are we operating under nation wide”?

    Notice the gold fringe flags in any of the court rooms or on a so called law enforcement employee shoulder?

    The only place in the UNITED STATES CODE is for the UMITED STATES MILLITARY!

    So my question is [ Is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ] and all courts, policemen women military under a consolidated federal de facto government control now? i.e. Venue. Or are we under the [ Territories and possessions ] of the United states “congress” venue? Or under some kind of “UNITED NATIONS” venue? e been over looking as to how to explain the strange rulings coming out of our Federal Courts over the past number of decades.
    This could be the answer we hav

  • Seth

    Hey, how about making a printable version of that, with a little back story at the top, and the judge’s name at the bottom, so we know who wrote it. Then we can print them off, and hand them out.

  • dustjunky2000

    Well done. I thoroughly enjoyed this.

  • Cyberats

    We are at the End of All Things, literally for our species (nuclear warheads, HAARP, HIV & Ebola, Super Collider, laser weapons), standing at the precipice of disaster, to fall or to leap is a great difference and something that will make us a free society or an enslaved one.