Random Thoughts About the Supreme Court’s Refusal to Hear the NJ “Justifiable Need Case”

1860 Henry rifle (courtesy hackman-adams.com)

Over on TTAG’s Facebook page, Marc Johnson writes; “It should be noted the Supreme Court has handed down the most wide sweeping pro-2A Opinions in the history of the USA in the past few years. Often when they refuse to hear a case, it has nothing to do with the merits of the case itself, but with technicality issues that would render the case about some specific and non useful point, rather than the larger issue at hand.” Could be. The Supreme Court rarely explains its decision to hear or not hear a particular case. In this case, they offered no explanation. Regardless of their reasoning, yesterday’s decision has stirred-up strong feelings . . .

I’m so very disappointed in SCOTUS over the past 6 years, I’m losing faith in the country now. I want my country back!

Like many Americans, Facebooker Alan Ryan considers the Supremes’ Drake snub part of the government’s long march towards tyranny. Excessive taxation, burdensome regulation, bureaucratic bloat, militarized law enforcement, hidden surveillance, infringement on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It’s all much of a muchness, and none of it’s good.

In this dismay Mr. Ryan is not alone. What with the BLM showdown, New York’s SAFE Act making felons out of tens of thousands of previously legal gun owners, and the “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazine” ban in the Constitution State, anti-government pressure is building amongst The People of the Gun. And it’s not just them, either. TTAG commentator LJM heaves a weary sigh and takes it to the next [logical] step:

And so continues the perpetuation of the Two Americas, one that is infringed and the other not infringed.

A house divided…

Ellipses indeed. There’s a deep sense of foreboding surrounding the issue of gun rights at the moment. A sense that history is repeating itself. That pro and anti-gun states are growing further apart both politically and culturally. Because they are.

After the Sandy Hook slaughter, states home to small “c” conservative government started rolling back gun control laws. At the same time, states with a tyrannical or big government bent began turning the screws on their residents’ gun rights. New Jersey’s de facto ban on concealed carry – seemingly upheld by the Supreme Court – isn’t the only example. It’s not even a recent example. But it certainly throws this dangerous bifurcation into sharp relief.

That said, the conflict between the “Two Americas” is flying under the radar for most Americans: people busy trying to put food on their table and raise their children. And yet – I reckon it wouldn’t take much to escalate the conflict to a full-on inter-state Constitutional crisis. Although the Bundy Ranch confrontation was a fundamentally flawed example of anti-government fervor, it had a certain . . . inevitability to it. As Yeats pointed out, the center will not hold. Things fall apart.

Which is why I was hoping that the Supreme Court would take on Drake. If the Supreme Court had heard Drake, if they’d struck down the patently unconstitutional concept of “justifiable need” for concealed carry in New Jersey and elsewhere, if (and I’m dreaming here) they struck down the very idea of a government regulated firearms permitting system, that would have gone a long way towards easing people’s minds about over-reaching government, on the state and federal level.

We can’t load more than 11-rounds in our carry gun in Connecticut or buy a modern sporting rifle in New Jersey (and so on), but at least we have a right to keep and bear arms. We can reclaim the rest of our rights from there. Like that.

Note: I don’t believe that the Supreme Court’s rulings are the final word on the U.S. Constitution. IMHO the Court’s shameful history regarding slavery puts paid to that. Besides, the Constitution is a well-written and I can read well enough. Regardless of the conflict between natural law, Constitution law and law as she is practiced, I see the Supreme Court as a pressure valve. Its decisions can defuse seriously conflicting views, providing an “Oh well, let’s get on with it then” backdrop for their resolution.

Or not. Cough Civil War cough. Which raises the $64,000 question: is America headed for another state-based fracture? In some ways, in many ways, we’re already there. As for the possibility of a more violent conflict, that depends entirely on what happens with Uncle Sam.

If left alone, California, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey et al will eventually collapse under the weight of their own tyranny – as businesses and earners continue to flee to more congenial climes. If, however, Uncle Sam throws its weight behind these socialist enclaves, propping them up and attempting to extend their big government ethos into small government states, there will be hell to pay.  States won’t rebel against each other. They rebel against the federal government.

Bottom line: the next federal election cycle and the one after that are more important to this country’s course than the Supreme Court’s rulings on gun rights. But it sure doesn’t seem that way, does it?

comments

  1. avatar Phydeaux says:

    The “slave” states you mention most likely lack the critical mass required to sustain a credible civil war. It seems to me that liberals are most worried about the rest of the country forcing libertarian or conservative decisions on them. Like a national concealed carry reciprocity law.

    My fantasy is the Republicans taking all three branches of government in 2016 and righting many of the wrongs that have crept into our government: federalism, commerce clause, pervasive surveillance, second amendment issues… there’s really quite a list.

    1. avatar OCD says:

      What makes you think Republicans will fix those issues? They helped create those issues. It boggles my mind that people think either side of the same coin will role back the infringes on our rights. People have selective amnesia or they have no clue what their talking about. Probably both.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        The problem is, it will require compromise for the GOP to take and hold the Senate. Not every GOP Senator will be a Cruz or Paul. Some are, or will be, like the Maine Sisters. Just as Dem Senators from redder states have kept Obama from passing sweeping gun control or energy control, the GOP Senators from purple states will stop the GOP from enacting my fantasy conservo-libertarian agenda.

        Yes Obama got two years of Lefties Gone Wild in 2009-2010, and how well has that worked out? Remember, GWB couldn’t even make a dent in Social Security reform, because he was blocked by his own party.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I agree. The furthest my fantasies go is that I would like to see the next president repeal EVERY executive decree/proclamation made by the current one on the first day, in the first hour, of his/her presidency. Then start over, working with Congress.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “repeal EVERY executive decree…”
          That would be me.

    2. avatar Paelorian says:

      I’ve no interest in forcing my values on people who live in another state, thousands of miles away. I say let them live in a communist dystopia, maybe they’ll find out that freedom is preferable. We wouldn’t try to force laws on citizens of foreign countries, why is it a New Yorker’s business what the laws are in Arizona? All this struggle is because people want to force others to behave in certain ways, and we end up with compromises that please no one. I want to live under laws that my community agrees upon, I don’t want to be enslaved by people far away who have no understanding of what life is like where I live and yet legislate all the laws I live under. We don’t even have to drastically alter the existing structure of government by splitting the union or dissolving or minimizing the federal government to return to local governance and self-determination, we can simply respect the Constitution and traditional ideas of power mostly residing with the states and the people.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Forgive my oversimplification but it’s illustrative; It seems to me that what you decry is legislation without (adequate) representation. You may have struck at the hear of the problem; the US is a nation only in name, united behind almost nothing entirely. The ‘values’ of the average metropolitan progressive are so different than mine that I could likely find much more in common with citizens of certain foreign nations.

        There must be a breaking point at which the differences in the two Americas can no longer be reconciled. There may in fact be several such tripwires; taxation, immigration, regulation and certainly the RKBA. Of all these the last is the most likely to make hot what has been for at least two decades a cold war between progressives and everyone else.

        I don’t know what form the coming conflict will take but I do know who will win; those interested in imposing their will on others for arbitrary ideals will never have the commitment to their task as those who fight for their own freedom. In my mind the question can be distilled to the type of conflict that will eventually take place and how many casualties there will be. In a cold war it’s mere economic collapse that threatens the left. In a hot one, it might well mean that none of the progressive stripe is permitted liberty again. We shall see.

    3. avatar Tobias325 says:

      What makes you think that this will erupt into a civil war? Make no mistake on the subject, if the Federal Government means to continue overstepping its bounds by enormous strides, there will be bloodshed, there will be war, there will be a paradigm shift in the very heart of our country, it will not come in the form of a civil war, be clear. It will come in the form of a Second Revolutionary War for the freedoms of our people, and the elimination or at the very least minimization (although elimination is more likely) of Big Government. Our current Federal Government system is broken, and it has been broken and corrupt for so long that people in general simply think that’s how it is SUPPOSED to work. Another detali that you might not have considered is this: our military (officers and enlisted) swore an oath to protect and defend The Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic before they swore to obey the (lawful) orders of those appointed over them. Just as Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws, Unconstitutional orders aren’t legal. I have very little doubt that as much at 60% (possibly less, but certainly no less than 30%) of our military will refuse to follow orders to fire on American citizens if it were to come down to fighting.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        On the “60%” / “40%” figures; I wonder what the real data is. Figuratively speaking, in your mind’s eye, imagine a Bible-study group in a police locker-room or army barracks. Now, substitute for the Bible, a couple of different documents:
        – The Constitution/Federalist-Papers; or,
        – Soldier-of-Fortune magazine
        What rings-true for you? Are our police and military talking about what acts they might be ordered to execute might just be UN-Constitutional? Are they talking about what is really Tacti-Cool?
        A bit of both must be taking place. If it’s only a tiny bit about the Constitution and a lot about whatever is Tacti-Cool, that’s not – net – constructive. If our police and soldiers are increasingly talking about their oath to the Constitution and Tacti-Cool is starting to be questioned as a not-such-a-good-idea that would really be constructive.
        Does anyone inside these locker-rooms/barracks have any insight to offer?

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “if it were to come down to fighting”

        I haven’t yet found numbers on the Oath Keepers, but I’ve found that it’s a paid membership; haven’t pursued that any further but spotted this interesting video. I also don’t have numbers on the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, but they’re another ally here. And somebody mentioned the logistics problems, when everybody in the supply chain is also an American.

        [metaphysics]
        And God says Free Will is going to win; the amount of bloodshed each of us experiences is up to the individual.
        [/metaphysics]

        That’s the funny thing about Freedom – it doesn’t require anything at all, other than that you be Free.

  2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Peruta is a better case because rather than a broad brushed state-wide standard in NJ, Peruta deals with county by county standards, that themselves are arbitrary and capricious. I am hoping the “prettiest AG in America” pushes this before the 9th circuit. It would be great to have them challenge a liberal circuit on this issue.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      I’m thinking that now Kamala will lose interest in becoming a party to Peruta getting) an en banc review that overturns Peruta.

      If she leaves it alone, then it goes no further than the 9th. Just like DC Mayor Adrian Fenty kept insisting on appealing Heller against advice (pressure) not to.

      Asking the Supreme Court to decide whether or not we have a right to carry weapons for defense outside the home and whether the state can require a “justifiable need” or “good and substantial reason” to exercise that right is trying to take too big a bite out of the apple at once.

  3. avatar gloomhound says:

    …in a trial of a thousand years…

  4. avatar Mediocrates says:

    A nation divided indeed. I will offer no aid nor assistance to the anti-Constitution states, with humble apologies to the TTAG members that live there.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      I understand your sentiment and share it. That California, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey are still lawfully organized states boggles my mind. I happen to live in a ‘free’ state, or mostly free, but I don’t think I could conscience paying taxes in one of the progressive dystopias. I really mean that it would be an ethical dilemma for me/ On the one hand I feel that open revolt ought to be the order of the day in some of these places and it already is, at least by degree, and on the other I cannot support progressivism in any way shape or from. Left without other options (other states to live in) I’d either have to become a prisoner for refusal to pay taxes or, if the situation seemed at all amicable, become a rebel with the sole purpose of bringing the state back to a situation of liberty and lawfulness (i.e. deposing the progressvist government of the state).

      I have to admit that I’m frightened of what 2016 will bring, deeply concerned about the current state of affairs, and worried about what my role will eventually be however this finally shakes out, but this much I think is certain; a fight of some design is coming, and the winner takes all. Will it be liberty, or will it be tyranny?

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “but this much I think is certain; a fight of some design is coming, and the winner takes all. Will it be liberty, or will it be tyranny?”

        I choose Liberty. The nature of Freedom is that each person chooses whether they want to be free or a slave, and those who choose to be slaves have to decide for themselves who their master is.

        If you’re waiting for someone’s permission to be Free, then you don’t yet understand the concept.

  5. avatar dwb says:

    Please everyone stop fooling yourself: the Supreme Court does NOT want to be lawmakers, nor should they be put in that position. Judicial non-activism means they give great deference to the legislature, even when they despise the decision.

    Republicans handed over the keys by becoming the OFWG party where women who are raped don’t get pregnant.

    The future lies with minorities who have forgotten that their freedoms were taken away at gunpoint, arrested en mass, and who now live in gun-free zones in fear of reprisal from drug dealers should they call the cops.

    To make headway, gun rights activists need to elect different Democrats. In traditionally blue places.

    As for Drake, very disappointing. Peruta, and some other cases are up next. Maybe Drake had some technical issues… they did relist it quite a few times while denying Embody outright, so they are interested in the issue.

    But overall, people need to stop hoping SCT will save them. They might, but only reluctantly when absolutely forced to, maybe years from now.

    People need to stop voting based on purity and start voting based on pragmatism – the most gun friendly politician who can win.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “Judicial non-activism means they give great deference to the legislature, even when they despise the decision.”

      That is all fine and good unless a legislature passes laws that violate their respective constitutions or our fundamental, inalienable rights. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were smart enough to know that elected legislatures could enact such laws (whether due to coercion, corruption, or for political gain.) And that is why they defined the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Bill of Rights. Thus our U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to strike down heinous laws that infringe our rights such as the “justifiable need” aspect of New Jersey’s concealed carry law … and in my opinion New Jersey’s entire concealed carry law itself.

      It really is as simple as this: we don’t need state of federal government licenses to exercise a right. If such a license is required, the right is no longer a right, but a privilege. It is high time that the U.S. Supreme Court issue decisions that reflect that simple truth.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court is composed of people. Fallible, human people. Or perhaps, thankfully.

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      “Republicans handed over the keys by becoming the OFWG party where women who are raped don’t get pregnant.”

      One stupid, failed candidate says one stupid thing and we have to carry that cross forever? Biden says stupider things at least once a week, but nobody cares. Holder basically declared war on non-blacks and nobody cared.

      1. avatar dwb says:

        It was way more than one. You are right, Democrats say stupid things all the time, and some of them are racist to boot. Paul Ryan gets in trouble and called a racist for the exact same statement that Obama made.

        But, part of getting the message out and broadening the base is getting your s&|t together, showing how crazy some Dems are, and until this year the GOP has not had it together. The govt shutdowns and threatened defaults were a disaster, they made the GOP look like the crazy apocalyptic party.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          Our ‘friends’ the liberal press have a pervasive part in framing the public’s perception of ‘what is’.

          Since they are so intent on giving Dems great latitude and castigating Repubs at every opportunity that presents, that is where the blame should be laid for the schism between what is real and what is disingenuous.

      2. This MAFWG agrees!
        Middle Aged Fit White Guy

    3. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      ah, but the SCOTUS is human. And that means that they COULD be activists if they wanted to. not saying they aren’t either.

    4. avatar Robert W. says:

      Here’s a view coming from a substantially liberal county in California.

      I would love to vote for the best 2A supporter that “can win,” but there aren’t any in that category. The candidates that I have the option of voting for are either authoritarian, “free the weed” good for nothings, or staunch republicans. Any of the moderate, reasonable, better for the 2A but still not the best, candidates don’t exist on the ballot. They don’t get the support from parties or groups, they are just seen as too blah. So instead I am forced to either vote “purely” or vote for the exact opposite of what I want. That is no choice.

      I am still waiting for the time to come, maybe in 2020, when the people will realize that the past batch of presidents have been elected on the outward social view of the candidate. We have the media parading these people around kissing babies and shaking hands, but no substantial information about the actual politics and policies which are being worked on.

      I am hoping we get a Republican president in 2016 (I will vote republican, but there really won’t be any candidate worth it on any side) if only to show that there is no difference between Obama and whatever Republican gets put in office. Both will be all about big talk, promises of changes and recovery and better life for all americans, but there will just be political gear grinding and inaction.

      I only hope that after another 4 years of that, even if the window dressing are red instead of blue, there will be a push for an Independent candidate with the support of real a-political analysts and and groups that can push towards a real change in the way the USA has been operating. Figure out a way to dampen the swings of the economy rather than exacerbate them, Pinpoint and solve the key social issues that are dividing the country, show the USA how to become better as a whole rather than supporting one sub-section of the population.

      1. avatar dwb says:

        I hear you, but its not just guns. People will keep on doing the same thing until it proves unworkable, like Detroit, or Illinois. It’s really just mostly education and encouraging municipalities to experiment. People are blissfully unaware until a crisis happens or you point it out.

        I have no doubt political parties will evolve, because they have to to stay relevant and survive. But, it’s only going to happen painfully slowly and only if people actually vote.

  6. avatar BDub says:

    The Supreme’s avoidance on this topic has only little to do with gun rights, and much more to do with the can of worms that would open should they shoot down “justifiable need” as a legal basis for any regulation.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Didn’t think of that. Thanks.

    2. And we all know that the SCOTUS hates to open a can of worms.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I agree. I think they want to wait and see how the Districts work it out.

  7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I was personally stunned that the U.S. Supreme Court quashed the Drake case for New Jersey. Not only is the “justifiable need” standard, much less the resulting de-facto ban, egregious and obviously unconstitutional, there is a split in the appellate courts that says our justice system is schizophrenic. The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Drake is thus inexcusable and a loud, clear pronouncement of their illegitimacy.

    We are in a very grim situation now. State and Federal governments have been actively infringing our rights and violating the U.S. Constitution for decades. We the People finally attained the collective gumption to challenge this injustice. At this point We the People have effectively exhausted all peaceful methods available to correct this injustice. I am not looking forward to the next move.

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      Wrong, we still have two or three steps that MUST be taken before we start to think like that.

      First is that there are a couple more cases that MUST run their full course in the courts, Peruta for one. I too agree that there is some backstage politics going on, even in the SCOTUS. But there is obviously some serious thought about taking a case to help define “and bear,” something that WE understand, but the left needs it in stone.

      Next is that we have a couple rounds of elections in which the people can show their distaste in the direction the government has taken. The current Mid-Terms will be very telling, and if this year and 2016 pull hard right of where we were going, then there is a chance for meaningful protections to our rights.

      If that does not work, and even though the majority of American states WANT these changes, but the federal government does not change, no matter who we elect into it, then the states must push for a Constitutional Convention. At this point, it really seems that it is the states being walked all over by the federal government. If that were fixed, even if someone were in an anti-gun state, they should feel free to get up and leave, go to a 2A state, but not have to worry about what the federal government may be holding over their heads still.

      Then, and only then, should we begin to start saying statements like, “We have exhausted all other options,” or “Violence is necessary.” Granted, there is no reason we should not be prepared for the worst to come like a bolt of lightning. These options are still viable NOW. There could be a major change that happens in the next couple years that could remove them from the board, but we should pursue them fully while they are still on the table.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          It doesn’t matter if it is a good or bad idea, it matters that it is a civil and legal way to attempt regress of our grievances. Until all these are exhausted violence isn’t conscionable. If the outcome of a constitutional convention leaves us in an untenable position, perhaps then revolution is all that is left to us. Until then, all civil methods must be exhausted.

    2. avatar John says:

      The problem I see is that there have been few challenges by the Anti’s in the states that are shall issue. Until a state like Texas, Kansas, or Oklahoma has their law challenged by the group formerly known as MAIG or the MDA they likely won’t begin to take the case. Right now the local districts are dealing with it and while there are divisions between the rest of the country it’s really a one sided push against the Anti establishment. If they don’t actually try to push back they will eventually loose any ground they have gained but it will take a lot longer to bowl them over or get a decision from the SCOTUS in my opinion.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I think they aren’t pushing back too hard is that they have other, possibly bigger, fish to fry.

        Obamacare (the ACA fiasco) is a festering sore in their side, they desperately want to sprinkle pixie dust on the illegals in this country so they can become citizen Liberal Democratic voters, and they can’t resist the surge to legalize pot so they can stay happily mellow while they plot their next socialist crusade.

  8. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    They didn’t take the case because only had 4 votes to overturn.

    Keep this in mind when you vote in 2016.

    Even RINO like McCain or Romney would have done better than Sotomayer and Kagel.

  9. avatar Chubby says:

    Nothing is gonna happen.

    No revolution.

    No civil war.

    No states are gonna implode (they’ll just get bailed out by the Fed’s cause they deliver the VOTES come election time).

    These are the same talking points I’ve been hearing since the 70s…….

    1. avatar OCD says:

      +1 Nothing will change until people stop relying on the tv news for misinformation/ I mean information. I understand the majority don’t have the time to do individual research, but they better find the time or things will get much worse.

    2. We will hardly get started on this revolution before the powerful Nations of the East, Middle and Far East see the chance to conquer the great white Satan.
      We better get our shit together THIS YEAR!

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        …can’t tell if serious….

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      This is true. I’ve been hearing this ever since the 90s myself. It comes up every couple of months, sometimes takes a break for a year or two. “Its commin man, the shits gonna hit the fan in (insert a “couple of months” or “next year”), theres gonna be a civil war or a revolution. Its gonna happen man, its gonna happen man… look at everything going on it HAS to happen…” Yeah, OK. Been hearing it for 20 years now. Not seeing it…. Though I do agree if anyone can make IT happen, it will be HillBill HillBillary Hiltery Clinton. But chances are, its just not gonna happen man.

      1. avatar JR says:

        Well, that’s the thing about a so-called “apocalypse.” The word refers to what future will happen if things don’t change.

        Dicken’s A Christmas Carol is the classic example.

        So, those predictions are often accompanied by some change that happened to relieve the pressure. These pressure relievers don’t have to be ‘good’ events; perhaps distractions is a better word. 9/11 may qualify … that is, that event shifted the focus from domestic policy to foreign policy, and so a lot of the “Civil War” talk subsided.

        So, yeah, people have been making predictions like that for a long time, but the implicit thing they don’t usually say is “if we stay on the exact course we are on right now.”

  10. avatar mrvco says:

    It is small consolation for New Jersey, et al, but I think the lack of a decision will bode well for the 2014 elections. Pro-2A folks will be ever energized to “get out the vote”, while the lack of a decision will do little to nothing to reinvigorate Bloomberg’s fracturing Anti’s.

  11. avatar Sammy says:

    Relying on the electorate to vote correctly in the next two elections is a fool’s game. Remember the last two elections?????

  12. avatar miforest says:

    It seems clear that the federal government has already chosen sides . they will tax income earners everywhere and transfer the money to the more tyrannical states . flee if you want , the oppressive states don’t care, the feds will send them your money anyway.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Well, I know here in the Worker’s Paradise of Maryland we are looking forward to Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum. Or possibly the Little Piddy that went weeeee all the way home. In other words, more of the same one party rule. Because Baltimore; Howard, PG and MOCO (vs the rest of the state) will rally the zombie hordes to vote Democratic yet again.

  13. avatar surlycmd says:

    All empires fall and this one will too. Eventually. Most of our society is ill equipped to take care of themselves. The local grocery store and mall is a lot for them to give up. It will take much more gov’t overreach and infringement of rights before even 3% of the population will revolt.

  14. avatar James says:

    “To make headway, gun rights activists need to elect different Democrats. In traditionally blue places.”

    I really sympathize with the sentiment. Problem is, there just isn’t enough of these Democrats in the base. And the way things are going, there never will. Face it, the folks who have forgotten their freedom and live in fear of reprisal are being told every day, every week, every month, that guns are bad and need to be banned and that only government can save them. In my state’s large urban center, the social service organizations and public schools peddle that message, and then tell them which Democrats to vote for.

    Whether you want to believe it or not, the purity purge has been going on the liberal side too.

    1. avatar Wendy says:

      “Whether you want to believe it or not, the purity purge has been going on the liberal side too.”

      I would have to agree with this. All you have to do is talk with a liberal gun owner who has found him/herself attacked at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground over gun issues. Most people on the Daily Kos just can’t grok the reality posited by the RKBA Kossacks group that, for Democrats, “more gun control equals lost elections” because they’re so invested in the Guns Bad mindset. And too many Democrats have forgotten (or never learned) the lesson of the 1994 midterms. Methinks this year will be a reprise of 1994.

  15. avatar JeffR says:

    Firearms regulation will not be enough to provide a tipping point. It would take a massive federal overreach on an issue that impacts more people. Who knows what that could be. The irony, however, will be that when does happen — and it eventually will — half the country won’t understand why the other half is so angry.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      While that makes sense, I am not sure it’s true. If we’re talking about a peaceful revolution, at the ballot box or simple refusal to obey/enforce the law, yes. But an actual shooting war, I think, would most likely be caused by infringements on firearms, since the offended parties are the same as the parties which would be doing the shooting, rather than volunteering others.

      1. avatar OCD says:

        If a actual shooting war were to happen, we would lose this Republic that some of us hold near and dear forever.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Yep. I have a feeling that no matter who wins, we wouldn’t see the ideal republic people seem to think. Discord like that breeds tyranny of all sorts… and there are sorts worse than what we have now.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          The same was said in the Revolution, there was a huge divide among colonists during it, and many colonists served the crown. We didn’t see a “French revolution” like scenario there did we? Not saying its not possible, but just because things break down, doesn’t mean that we cant rebuild.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          What would a post-revolution America look like? Bunkerville? Odessa? Cairo?

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “What would a post-revolution America look like?”

          Those who live will “be completely free and empowered to do whatever you want, go wherever you wish and be with whomever you choose.”
          http://www.godchannel.com/folksinterview.html#mothersdream

    2. avatar Maineuh says:

      “The irony, however, will be that when does happen — and it eventually will — half the country won’t understand why the other half is so angry.”
      This right here. This is what’s so frustrating.

  16. avatar Dave357 says:

    The “two Americas” theory died with the magazine size limit law in Colorado. Unhelpful attitudes are spreading.

  17. avatar Omer Baker says:

    The Civil War wasn’t really state vs state, it was General govt vs seceding state. When the tyrant Lincoln stated ‘Four score and seven years ago…’ the era he’s referring to was when people seceded from a govt that they felt were tyrannical to form new ones of their own designed to be independent from an outside infringement upon their liberties, yet that was exactly what Lincoln’s General govt was doing to the southern seceding states. There may be another conflict between the General Govt along with those who believe that once in the union always in the union against those who believe that the power to govern comes from the consent of the govern, but judging by history, I do not look forward to it.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Keep in mind that in the 1700s the “Government” was across the Atlantic; in the 1800s the “Government” was across the Potomac; and today the “Government” is across the street and above your head. Ponder Sun Tzu’s advice.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        I think you’ve just made a very convincing argument that a second revolution is needed, fast.

  18. avatar RetMSgt says:

    All you need is two words to explain their decision – JUDICIAL COWARDICE.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    Heller was not such a sweeping decision if the courts refuse to carry it and the ‘common use’ provision through to their logical conclusions.

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      Heller itself is less of a problem than the subsequent SCOTUS rejection of all gun cases brought before it. This prevents whatever logic is in Heller from being solidified.

      1. avatar Wendy says:

        Really, the problem is the dicta in _Heller_, stating, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (cites omitted). For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (cites omitted) …nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” I would bet that Scalia put that in to secure Kennedy’s vote, but it creates a hole big enough to drive a truck through.

  20. avatar LJM says:

    A problem does arise in the so called Purple States (e.g. Colorado, Virginia). People living in historical pro-gun states find themselves now dealing with anti-gun legislators and legislation. However you can’t deny that the 7th Circuit and Illinois legislature (effectionately dubbed the “Combine” by those of us in the LoL) gave a Deep Blue state the real taste of concealed carry. I see first hand people who never truly experienced their 2nd ammendment rights until just recently, and these people now see the 2A “debate” in a whole new light and any effort to limit that right as a direct infringement. Much was gained from the clarity of the Heller and McDonald decisions. But “May” issue, arbitrary gun/mag bans and gun owner licensing remain in my mind the most egregious and unsettled issues that probably can only be determined by the SC. And I hope Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy can find the right cases to settle this in way in which Heller and McDonald did. I hope.

  21. avatar Sid says:

    I think some portion of the problem is that the Supreme Court rulings are blown out of proportion. The question brought before them is often very narrow and specific. In the coverage, the specificity is glossed over. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    Huge defeat for supporters of _______ when the SC ruled _____ on ______. This case was viewed by many as a bellweather on _______ and ______.

    It was no such thing. The SC decided not to review a case because it was ruled that the party had no standing to bring the case, it was clear that the lower court had not correctly handled the original case, etc… The issue is that the Supreme Court is charged with ruling on very narrow grounds. They are not ruling on the merit of a particular law or court ruling. They very well may not like the law, but they are being asked “was this law correctly enacted”. Yes. They are not asked “is this a good law”.

  22. avatar David_TheMan says:

    The real problem isn’t the court.
    It is the boobus-americanus who things their rights are decided by them.

  23. avatar Kevin says:

    I suspect their decision had more to do with states rights that the 2A. Shall issue and may issue is something that can be… and has been… changed on the local level much quicker that the federal level.

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    SCOTUS is running out of reviewable “may issue” cases simply because there are only a few may issue states — about ten as of right now, counting CA and HI among the may issue jurisdictions.

    If Peruta does not go up to SCOTUS or it does and SCOTUS chooses not to grant cert (either of which seems likely), then SCOTUS will be out of the 2A business. Which is what I think it wants.

    Heller and McDonald have already been decided. If the states are screwing us out of our 2A rights, it’s up to the voters to make the necessary changes. Not SCOTUS. The voters.

    In 1986, “no issue” states outnumbered “shall issue” states. Now there are no de jure “no issue” states, although some are de facto “no issue.” The voters did that. Not SCOTUS. The voters.

    Keep voting.

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      It took both the court and the voters to get it done in Illinois.

    2. avatar Mark Bruscke says:

      You are absolutely correct. If we can’t persuade our neighbors to see things our way then why should we be looking to 5 Supremes to solve our problems? We are our own worst enemies. We won’t settle for less then perfection so we stay home on election day. Then, we complain about our legislators. We watch the Progressives successfully play the politics game and learn nothing. We know they want an all-powerful government with a powerless-People; yet, they don’t demand all-or-nothing. They chip away at Liberty one small chink at each stroke. How do they eat the Elephant? One bite at a time. Why do we learn nothing? Because we are pure. For us, it’s all or nothing. If we can’t terrify the people into respecting our gun-rights then we won’t play. We praise the Constitutional Carry States; but do we look at the NRA/Brady ratings for their Senators?
      We will win this game sooner if we wise-up sooner. As just one example: remember the picture of the guy at the Bundy ranch aiming his AK-14 between two Jersey barriers? Aiming a gun at someone is an assault. He couldn’t observe with a telescope? His AK-47 could not have been leaning against the Jersey barrier ready to be used if the need arose?
      We complain like hell against the NICS check at the gun shop; but not a word about the 20 year retention period for 4473 forms. Why not embrace the NICS check and demand the retention period be shortened to 5 years? That would accomplish something. Why not move the contract to field the NICS check from a DOJ appointed private contractor to an industry-appointed contractor? That would close the book on our suspicions that the NICS checks are being archived.

  25. avatar kap says:

    bottom line! SCOTUS are political Hacks that are still Government employee’s, deciding mostly in favor of big business and the Government, very seldom do they take
    ” the peoples cases” like Obama care that is nothing more than democratic pandering after the big insurance companies!

  26. avatar borg says:

    They chose not to hear it because they believe that there is no right to a concealed weapon and therefore a case that involves preserving the right such as Peruta which has a better shot because there is no other way to carry since California did away with unloaded open carry.

  27. avatar Granny Grunch says:

    SCOTUS did not say yea or nay about carrying…it just left a state law remain. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a state like nj…too bad…there is alway Texas…..and it looks like nj and ny are learning the hardway about Texas

  28. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    You are right, SCOTUS is not the final word on the Constitution. The solution to judges that ignore the Constitution or read into it things that were never intended is the impeachment process. The House (i.e. the unwashed mob) can scream for blood and the Senate (i.e. the various States) decides whether to throw the judge out. The Executive doesn’t even have a role in this. So from that perspective it’s the States that are the final authority on what the Constitution means.

    If necessary, the States can even summon a Constitutional Convention. The sole role of the Federal Government in such a case is to call the convention. I think this latter is one of progressivism’s worst nightmares — they would need 13 States to oppose changes they don’t like and need 37 States to support their agenda. They can’t pull those numbers together.

    Frankly, I think that’s a big part of what was behind the 17th Amendment. The most important thing for the progressive movement was to emasculate the Senate and open the way for federal elections to be reduce to mob rule.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email