Brady Gang Charges 'Judicial Activism'

The Brady Campaign to rob citizens of their Constitutional rights has reacted to the news of the U.S. Supreme Court's agreeing to hear the D.C. vs. Heller case. The Brady Gang stated that the U.S. District Court that struck down D.C.'s gun ban is a case of 'judicial activism.'

It gives one pause to wonder how they made this gigantic leap of 'logic.'

For the first 150 years of this nation's existence it was assumed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed and protected the individual's right to keep and bear arms. This is made clear by the numerous comments, speeches, and writings of the Founders of the Republic.

A mere cursory knowledge of the history of the ratification of the 'Bill of Rights,' the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, will make clear in any reasonable thinking person's mind that the entire foundational basis for having a Bill of Rights was to protect the individual rights of citizens.

Some of the signers of the Constitution were persuaded to do so only under the condition that such rights would be included as the law of the land once the original document passed the muster.

In addition, Thomas Jefferson, one of the primary advocates and writers of the Constitution, stated many times that the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear firearms is one of the foundational prerequisites for a free society, and that the only way for that society to stay free was through an armed citizenry.

My friends, these key foundational principles of this nation have been nearly lost.

The second half of the 20th century brought forth judicial activism with a vengeance. The High Court and lower courts often at will changed the meaning of some of the key terms that are central to a Constitutional Republic. In essence, these judicial charlatans rewrote sections of the Constitution for all practical purposes, making null and void the original intent of the Founders.

A true judicial activist does not blink at rendering Constitutional decisions that fly in the face of original intent. In fact, the notion of original intent is important to these judicial charlatans only to the degree that they are made aware of the 'quaint, outdated views of a bygone era.'

Thus, the judicial activist feels that he/she is free to essentially write new law from the bench rather than strictly interpret the law as the Founders intended...which is the ONLY legitimate task of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Activists and their supporters such as the Brady Campaign often forget that the legislative branch alone writes the laws. And then it is up to the High Court to determine if those laws are consistent with the Constitution, or, the 'original intent' of the Founders.

If Congress, the states, or local governments pass laws that are contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, as designated by the Founders themselves, then those laws are rendered null and void, and struck down.

An activist court, however, may choose not to strike down such laws in spite of the fact that they may be entirely contradictory to clear Constitutional principle.

With the tendency of the High Court to engage in judicial activism since the 1950s and 60s, many of the precepts that the Founders held dear and regarded as sacrosanct have been discarded and nearly lost. One of those precepts is the notion that an armed citizenry is essential to prevent tyranny.

The Founders considered government itself, potentially even their own government, to be the biggest threat to liberty on earth, and that an armed citizenry was necessary to keep such oppressive government in check.

I often wonder if perhaps that deep inner conviction and drive has been totally lost on our society.

Apparently the Brady Gang thinks it has, or else they would not so blatantly and erroneously claim that a federal court that struck down D.C. laws that clearly violated the beliefs and values of our Founders is an act of 'judicial activism.'

The very fact that they feel they can say such a thing publicly, with a straight face, and believe the masses will buy it, is a stinging indictment on modern American society.

In fact, the Bradys' contention that a court ruling that affirmed original intent is actually judicial activism is a chilling example of the Orwellian nightmare of 'newsspeak' and 'doublespeak.'