BREAKING: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Maryland “Assault Weapon” Ban Case

Maryland assault weapons ban (courtesy tacticalgear.com)

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment was an incorporated and fundamental right we’ve been waiting for additional cases to see how far that statement stretches. As stated in the opinion the Second Amendment is not an unrestricted right — only “commonly used” firearms were protected. But what qualifies as a “commonly used” firearm? And wouldn’t an AR-15, one of the most popular firearms ever produced, fall into that category and destroy the ability for states to impose their own Assault Weapons Ban?

That’s the very question that Kolbe v. Hogan sought to ask the court, a case challenging the newly enhanced Assault Weapons Ban in Maryland. Kolbe believes that the AR-15 is a Constitutionally protected firearm, much like the handgun in the Heller case, and therefore the assault weapons ban laws should be struck down.

In previous decisions along the path different courts have had different opinions — a Maryland district court ruled the law constitutional, then another court ruled that strict scrutiny needed to be applied to the case and ruled that the law was in fact unconstitutional. The latest ruling before the Supreme Court stated that the law was constitutional because the guns in question were especially dangerous, specifically discussing the Sandy Hook shooting in the decision as the rationale for upholding the ban.

It was hoped that the case would make it to the Supreme Court, where the same judges who ruled in the Heller decision would strike down the Assault Weapons Ban in Maryland and consequently California and New York would follow suit. But, in the latest order, the case has been declined for certification meaning that the lower court’s ruling will stand.

What does that mean? It creates a precedence for that court that the Assault Weapons Ban is legal and constitutional, but it doesn’t answer the question once and for all. We’ll probably see this question pop up again before the court actually decides to even listen to the case, which means even more time and money spent by Second Amendment advocates before these laws are finally struck down.

comments

  1. avatar Noishkel says:

    And this, once again, is another reason why you don’t trust the courts to look after your rights.

    America needs a reset.

    1. avatar tiger says:

      Reset? Be careful what you wish for…. The majority is not backing a loosening of current gun laws. A Reset is coming, Just not in our favor.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        Get bent Fudd. No rights are up for debate. If they left and the Rhinos don’t get that they they’re the enemy and should be treated as such. This nation is not run by a 51% consensus. If you got a problem with that… well too bad for you, because I don’t care anymore than the rest of the really hard core bastards out there care.

        I don’t exactly ‘aim to misbehave’ but I won’t be stopped by the law when it really matters. And if it’s at that point I’m not even bothering bother with guns as is.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          When does the revolution start?

          Naming someone an “enemy” for their political ideas is dangerously dehumanizing. Dehumanizing leads to the taking of lives. Where is your break-point, rubicon, or tripwire? At what point would you consider yourself in rebellion? And how would you pull people to your cause?

        2. avatar Noishkel says:

          Well then what the hell the point of even fighting for our rights if we just have to constantly make excuses and cow tow to BS ‘appeals to moderation’? Well I’m not doing that. You go right the hell and do that and let yourself be inched out of your rights a regulation at a time. I and everyone else that gives a damn will fight as hard and as smart as we can to keep making sure the fight is lost to Fudds like yourself. Because we have an entire media, government establishment, and untold numbers of NGOs that is directly appose to ANY of your rights.

          And to directly answer you question: well I don’t exactly know when you kick of any revolution, anymore than the people that founded this nation knew themselves when they had to do it back then. They just kept reacting to increasing pressure until it got too much to ignore. So we’ll just have to play it the same way. But for my money I don’t think we’ll see another full ‘revolution’ as much as a full blown balkanization of these United States back into individuals states and possibly region blocks. At the end of the day we’re a nation of 300 million people with only about 2 million cops and 2 million military. Do the math on that one and see what it gives you.

        3. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Nobody really ever knows exactly where that trip wire is. Every major political collapse is preceded by warning signs. But like a landslide, once it starts, things spiral rapidly out of control. Then it gets ugly. The problem is that established powers are usually to full of themselves to see it. Then they just blunder into it. Every time.

        4. avatar Denton says:

          The point of moderating our communications during this fight is so that we can all live together after the fight is over. They will still be Americans after we settle once and for all that the right to bear arms is sacrosanct. To form a lasting peace on this issue, we have to both convince them they were wrong and to not rub their faces in dirt during and after the fight. We can fight for our rights without turning the other side into the Enemy or resentful of us. We are still in the “convince and win-over” phase of this fight. Many on the Left, like us, are set in our thinking but we are battling for the undecided. Calling them the Enemy is a good way to lose them and their votes. I’m not asking for moderation in your position, only moderation in your communication.
          As for revolution, I agree. It’s hard to know and say ahead of time, “if they come for my AR, I’ll shoot every one of them and I’ll be the second shot heard around the world!” because we have other considerations like family that relies on us living or something. A word our founders used that still applies today is “intolerable”. What would be intolerable? Thinking of my kids, I can tolerate a lot for them if my choices were between martyrdom for a cause and providing for them. I recognize that I may be the proverbial frog in the cook pot.
          I think you’re right about the US’s future. Either we form the backbone of some larger Union or like an old soldier we just “fade away”. Balkanization is an interesting suggestion. I don’t think the US will break up like the Balkans did. That was after many crimes against humanity from all sides forced the conclusion that the people simply cannot live together any more. I think we’ll break up more like the USSR did: where states that wanted to for some time will take the opportunity when the Fed is too sick and weak to do anything about it. I think the only thing that would make it that sick would be after going into too much debt and having that debt called somehow.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “The point of moderating our communications during this fight is so that we can all live together after the fight is over.”

          Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some from your bag?

          You don’t get it, do you?

          One side or the other is going to have to back down, sit down, and shut up.

          News Flash – That ain’t gonna be happening. I *refuse* to live under their idea of ‘common sense’ gun regulation, and they feel the same about ours.

          What’s the next move then, eh?

        6. avatar Denton says:

          Well said Brandon. I especially like the thought you put into the questions to ask yourself before taking up arms.

          Geoff PR: I actually did mean to come across all lovey-dicey. In a democracy no one ever has to “back down, sit down, and shut up.” We still have communists, nazis, KKK, and Hari Krishnas. What we can do is make the other side back down for longer before regrouping by taking the political wind out of their sails. You do that by winning hearts and minds. You can’t do that by threatening armed insurrection without Brandon R’s context. If we happen to become the political losers, then we have a choice to make: are we prepared to sit down in order to regroup for another try through the democratic system or do we throw away democracy for a revolution?

          When you say “you refuse to live” what does that mean? If it means violence then you are deciding that the American Experiment is over.

      2. avatar The Punisher says:

        Reset. It’s called Secession.

        The “civil war” didn’t end the discussion for all time. If we have rights that are not granted to us by government, but are natural, such as the right to speech and the right to keep and bear arms, then we also have a right to not be governed by a government that we do not choose or accept. It’s just basic principle.

        No need to shoot or for violence.

        Just split up.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          Being “allowed” to succeed is another matter. The Civil War was fought because the North didn’t want to let go.

        2. avatar billy-bob says:

          War of Northern Aggression. Just saying.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          And then get gobbled up immediately by governments far worse than the one we’re ditching. America is too rich a prize to allow itself to be weakened and chopped up in the face of the greed of the rest of the world.

        4. avatar California Richard says:

          “Gobbled up” is more of a 1900 century “great game” mentality….. manuvered in to a dependent possision of political, economic, and mutual interests would be a more accurate term. We tried “gobbling up” Cuba and Philippines once upon a time. Apparently, Guam and Puerto Rico were our upper size limits.

    2. avatar Dan the Man says:

      Thank the NRA who keeps claiming that the Heller decision is such a great victory when the decision states that “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds are not constitutionally protected. Heller “changed” the 2nd Amendment from a right to protect yourself against tyranny into a right to protect yourself from robbers and rapists which almost every country in the world has. The only places that this decision benefited were communist Chicago and communist DC. Thanks NRA for converting our right into a permission slip again. The Heller decision will be the basis wherby we get national gun control not from a federal law but by each state discarding the right to bear arms.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        I’m pretty much right there with you. While the NRA has been an exceptionally useful tool it’s one with waning status given that it’s mostly devolved into a catch all voting block for whatever Republican needs a win. And at the end of the day we always get kicked to the side as soon as the election is over. Groups like the GOA and the SAF are and have always been far more effective, even with less reach.

        Personally I just go full blow tech anarchist and focus on building gear that can’t even be tracked. To me a 3D Printers and home CNC mills are better than a stack won court cases and pointless NRA endorsements any day.

      2. avatar raimius says:

        The majority opinion said no such thing. In fact, even the base article here is incorrect about what Scalia wrote in the Heller decision. I suggest you take an hour and go read it yourself, so you don’t keep repeating lies and misinterpretations.
        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…so you don’t keep repeating lies and misinterpretations.”

          Such as???

    3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      The Supreme Court is simply an extension of the “SWAMP”! They continue to refuse to hear these cases with the hope that they will eventually have enough leftist majority to strike down ALL of our rights, or by allowing states to do it for them. Roberts proved they cannot be trusted by changing Obamacare, which was/is not within his (or the court’s) authority. We will see a civil war erupt before we see the Supreme Court do their job!

      No matter how much good Trump does, he will never be able to stop the destruction that’s coming.

  2. avatar barnbwt says:

    Nine. Unelected. Persons.

    And our rights ratified by over than 3/4 of the population as a condition of forming the USA go unrecognized.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      It’s an overreach of authority coupled with an abdication of positions’ duties. What a strange lump of xhit.

      FU MD, you are a piss ant little patch of worthless real estate that should get Baltimore’d.

      The next time you get buried in BLM/ANTIFA/Soros protests, you better STFU and let the Fed come in and bend you over.

      1. avatar tiger says:

        Joe, try some decaf…..

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          or Thorazine…

        2. avatar troutbum5 says:

          He just switched to Sanka, so have a heart.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      “Nine. Unelected. Persons.”

      Appointed by elected presidents, confirmed by elected senators…we had a voice, whether we used it well or not.

      And no, as someone else said, we’re not ruled by a 51% elected majority, often our politicians win with much smaller margins than that. So we often end up with regulations created by a minority.
      Welcome to the Republic.

      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%27_presidential_plurality_victories)

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        WRONG! Two of those justices were appointed by an illegal alien usurper that was NOT legally elected. You can make all the claims you want that he was elected by the people, but just like with hil-LIAR-y, Obutthead was elected by a rigged/compromised system. In addition to that, it is the job of SCOTUS, no matter WHO they are appointed by, to make all of their decisions based on only one thing – the CONSTITUTION!!!!!! Even after they render a decision, the Constitution give Congress the final say – so in case the SCOTUS makes a “biased”/wrong decision, Congress can overrule it!

  3. avatar Joe R. says:

    “The theory going ’round:” . . . is if we give them a majority in the Congress and Senate, and a PRO 2A and Conservative Judge appointing person in the Presidency, the SCOTUS will make you have to take it all back with a gun.

  4. avatar Gman says:

    THE greatest insult to our little experiment with freedom and liberty is the thought of a Supreme Court justice who “interprets” the Constitution through the lens of personal conviction. Exactly what part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand? NO OTHER RIGHT has been so interpreted to mean “reasonable restriction” as the 2nd. DISCUSTING.

    1. avatar raptor jesus says:

      disGusting.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      So you’d like, what, for everyone to interperate the Constitution on their own? Complete anarchy.

      There’s a reason things are the way they are, even when that way isn’t good.

      1. avatar Some Random Guy says:

        There’s nothing to “interpret.” It’s written in plain English. The Enumerated Powers outlined in the Constitution does not even grant the government authority to restrict or regulate arms ownership. The way that the Enumerated Powers works, is that if it is not expressly written within the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution granting the authority to the government to do something, it cannot legally do it.

        Not that it has stopped them for awhile now.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          This is exactly what has happened with the driving laws that the states have created and manipulate to illegally generate billions in revenue from citizens. The Constitution is quite clear that “government” (whether city, state, or federal) can only regulate COMMERCE, NOT private travel! Yet 99.9% of Americans simply comply with these unconstitutional “laws”! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec&t=888s

    3. avatar dollup15 says:

      “NO OTHER RIGHT has been so interpreted to mean “reasonable restriction” as the 2nd. DISCUSTING.”

      While I sympathize with your overall post, this particular point is simply untrue. For example, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” How has “shall make NO LAW” been interpreted? Well, certainly not literally. Speech that presents a clear and present danger, defamation, obscenity, and commercial speech are limited by law and such limitations are upheld by the courts.

      Same thing with the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant to search private property – not always required even though the amendment says so.

      Is any of this proper? Who knows. I do know, however, that your assertion that Second Amendment has been limited by SCOTUS while other amendments are interpreted literally isn’t correct.

    4. avatar Joe Nieters says:

      There is no logic that can justify that the weapons intended for use by militia be any less capable than those of a potential enemy.

  5. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    What good is the Supreme Court if they don’t hear assaults and denials of the Second Amendment to citizens of a certain state? Why is it that they constantly refuse to hear anything on a gun bill or a gun related deal? There are absolutely useless.

    1. avatar tiger says:

      Not every case meets their test to be heard. Nor is it clear the ban violates the courts view on reasonable restrictions given in earlier cases.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      The majority of the court consists of progtards fools. In particular, the coven of 3 extremist broads. . The SWAMP.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      James Earl Hoffa,

      See Grumpster’s comment below. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case because some of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices know that they do not have enough votes with the current Justices to overturn the decision.

      Thus, it is better to let an objectionable lower court ruling stand in one particular jurisdiction than to make it the “law of the land” for the entire United States.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        When the SC refuses a case, the fact that a lower court ruling stands IS the law of the land. Not only, but the fact the SC would not even consider the issue means every federal court is free to “reasonably restrict” the entire 2A into oblivion. The refusal to review sets precedence; courts and states can regulate as they please.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, that is not correct, although it reflects what I was taught in high school. Here in TX we had a guy sue over Affirmative Action interfering with his admission to UT (“reverse discrimination”). He won his case, which was appealed to circuit court where he won, then appealed to SCOTUS where it was declined. Not only did no one in other circuits ignore the ruling, but the other states in the same circuit ignored it, leaving the only state affected by a ruling where SCOTUS declined review was TX, as opposed to the entire country. Don’t ask me how.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Simple, the courts are captive liberal. Of course they ignored a single ruling that challenged one of their precious principles. In the case instant, virtually all the lower courts want an excuse to restrict 2A, they will not ignore Kolbe v. Hogan and permit “expansion” of “gun rights” in their fiefdoms. Liberal courts upholding liberal ideas. Not surprising no other court took advantage of a victory over victimology.

  6. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    I always thought it was crazy, tin foil hat talk, about armed insurrection. Not so sure anymore. Folks we have, LOST our country.
    Now back to work little ones. Earn some money, so we the overlords can take most of it.

  7. avatar grumpster says:

    Right now at best there are only 4 Justices who would vote to uphold the Second Amendment. I have no confidence in Kennedy voting with the 4 and for sure the other 4 would vote to uphold the ban. If SCOTUS upheld the Maryland ban that could have huge ramifications and IMO you would see a whole bunch of blue and purple states immediately implementing all kinds of bans including what Maryland did and much worse.

    Sad for Maryland for now but I can understand the not wanting to hear the case at this point in time.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      I have less than no confidence in Roberts.

  8. avatar Nanashi says:

    Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomeyer are part of a very small number of people who should smoke and smoke several packs a day at that.

    1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      I don’t think Cockroaches can get cancer…

  9. avatar Kyle says:

    As I’ve said, endlessly, NO government wants its citizens armed. Some tolerate it better than others, but none want it.

    Arms control goes back centuries.

    This weeks criminals, are next weeks patriots. So as they ban firearms, the citizens will ignore the law. They will be demonized now, and written about in history books with glowing accolades later.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      What about the Czech? Didn’t Hungary say they wanted their citizens armed?

    2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      I was going to agree and suggest that American History is doomed to repeat itself again. In the same way as the early colonists fought against the British Monarchy (the crown) for freedom…Unfortunately, I realized I could probably be charged with a “Thought-Crime” now a days…Like a Chinese dissident in a Communist Country….How ironic…..

  10. avatar Anon in Ct says:

    I take that to mean that Kennedy has gone completely wobbly post-Heller/McDonald.

    Better no ruling than a bad one – but still disappointing.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “No ruling” IS a “bad ruling”. The lower court decision IS now the law of the land; precedence.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        It stands in Maryland. Other states are free to choose otherwise. It’s not binding. And still, it’s ripe for consideration and review anytime the SC wishes to hear the merits of a similar case. The problem comes when allowing the case to be heard when the court isn’t sure of the outcome. It’s a wise strategic decision to wait until one of the filthy, subhuman Liberal Terrorists™ retires or drops dead before agreeing to hear it. It’s not difficult to overrule a state Court. On the other hand, it’s not impossible, but extremely unlikely for the SC to ever reverse itself. And if they do so, it’s only after many, many years. And although it’s unfortunate that many folks will have to suffer under the tyranny of domestic enemies in states like Maryland until more favorable conditions present themselves. The silver lining here is that after Ginsberg or Kennedy leave, preferably on stretchers, and soon, they’ll be replaced with 40 something year old militant originalists that will finally remove any ambiguity when it comes to the 2A.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The lower court ruling (effectively sustained by the SC) means other appeals/district/circuit courts serve as “examples” of what the SC will ignore. Kolbe v. Hogan merely becomes another instance of the lower courts successfully defying SC re Heller. Or worse, another instance of the lower courts doing what the SC wanted all along.

  11. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Hopefully this is just strategic and they are just waiting for one of the filthy Liberal Terrorists™ to just drop dead already. Can’t risk a swing vote upholding such an important ruling. Once that happens, it’s a wrap. Unfortunately, remaining patient sucks for those living under tyranny. But until the SC rules, there’s still an opportunity to get it reversed. If this goes the wrong way in the high court, that becomes nearly impossible to getnthat precedent overturned.

  12. avatar Denton says:

    They are probably waiting for a controversy in the law to emerge as interpreted by the Districts. If different federal districts start interpreting Heller in different ways: some to uphold AWBs while others strike them down, then SCOTUS is more likely to step in and decide once and for all.

    Sidenote: this may be better in the long term since it’s likely that Trump will get to nominate another justice and a true conservative majority will be in place in time for another Heller decision to be made.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I think you’re overly optimistic. There are plenty of times when the Court has taken cases for much less, including 2A cases. The justices that might want to take it know it’s too risky.

      1. avatar Denton says:

        yeah, they might just be waiting on Ginsburg to die. Morbid but realistic.

  13. avatar JeffR in IL says:

    The SCOTUS denying to hear a case has no value as precedent outside of the circuit where the case was decided. So while it is disappointing that the SCOTUS has chosen to not hear this case, it’s not a loss at a national level.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari :

    […] the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[22] such a denial “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]” In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court’s decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

  14. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Probably just as well. Roberts would probably have declared the ban was actually a tax and let it stand. Better just to wait until Lil’ Ruthy croaks off and is replaced with a conservative.

    And I’d just like to point out that no ruling will settle anything ‘once and for all’. Dred Scott certainly didn’t.

  15. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    The ironic thing is not all “assault weapons” are banned in Maryland.

    AR-15’s that are not pencil/government barreled are still legal even in 5.56.

    New guns that have come out in the past 20 years are still legal (the Maryland list came out in 1994).

    Actual machine guns are legal in Maryland.

    Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, flash hiders, folding stocks, and the like are still legal in Maryland.

    Even guns that should be banned are not because of minor technicalities like Polytech M14’s and the Yugo M90NP AK.

  16. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    This should serve as a reminder that Trump needs another seven years to complete the swamp-draining process at SCOTUS.

    Nothing Trump does, or fails to do, will have such long-term impact as his appointments to the Federal Courts.

    1. avatar 2aguy says:

      Yes…..and sadly, that means voting for nitwit Republicans to be in the Senate….but it is something we will just have to do…otherwise the Right will be gone…..

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Pretty much. Also consider that Hillary would have filled SCOTUS and the federal courts with many more gun-hating lefties. I can’t wait for Ginsburg and the other commies to retire. Evil people sometimes have long careers. They end up looking like Emperor Palatine, but they keep on going. Hence why conservatives need to lay off the doughnuts, cheeseburgers, and fried Twinkies. If I don’t get killed in another high speed pursuit, shooting, or use of force, I intend to live a long time out of spite for these Constitution-hating judges and politicians.

      1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

        This is a bit off topic, but, as a cop can you obtain a lot of a full-auto gear? Suppressors easier to acquire than if you weren’t an LEO?

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          I’m not allowed any of that stuff, but SWAT can get full auto, suppressors and AP ammo pretty easily. Other agencies vary considerably.

  17. avatar MilitantCentrist says:

    Minor correction: the petition was denied certiorari (often shorthanded “cert”), not certification.

  18. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    The courts desperately need some more new blood.
    This is a crook of crap. The current judges know what they would have to do. Vote our way if they heard any of these cases.
    Instead they want to start a civil war I feel.
    We cant depend on any Liberal East or West coast District Courts to see things our way.
    The current setup of Supremes over 80 year olds plus illnesses have got to go.
    I don’t wish anyone to die at all. Retirement would be nice here.
    Trump has got to get in the next 2.5 years or hopefully less.
    1 to 3 new younger even if not Conservative judges appointed. Id settle for middle of the roaders.
    Unlike the last 2 ladies who have lied before the senate committees in order to get past the senate.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If Shrillary had won, probably several would have retired by now. They will die in office before deliberately allowing Trump to name their replacements.

  19. avatar 1000 Generation American says:

    These illegal judges should be impeached and arrested for treason!

    We need 9 judges who have a clue on the 2nd amendment,Constitution and original human civil rights.

    Once these Circuit, State,City Govt legislatures and representatives start getting recalled in put in jail i bet they all start recognizing the Constitution!

    But, we have a bunch of lazy citizens who don’t vote or vote for communist due to a mass influx of illegal voters who don’t understand this country or do not have roots here who’s family died for this country!

  20. avatar 2aguy says:

    This is why the Republicans must hold the senate for the next 7 years, no matter what stupid things they do with the rest of the policy issues. There are at least 3 social justice warriors in robes on the Court who will likely be gone sometime in that 7 year period….and in order to replace them with any chance at having a real Justice…..we need the Senate…..Trump has been replacing activists at the lower court level, and he did Gorsuch…..we need ginsberg replaced, kennedy replaced…..and the absolute only way to do that is a Republican senate. So if you care about the Right to bear arms….hold your noses and put any Republican with a pulse into the Senate….otherwise they will get rid of the Right for ever….

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Agreed. We ar thisclose to taking over the judiciary for at least a looooong generation, if not 2. Trump has his faults, for sure, but he’s been OUTSTANDING with his record breaking amount of judicial nominees. If nothing else, we need him to have the opportunity for as long as possible. His nominees have been better than both Bushes, by the way. Not one single liberal or middle of the road jurist, fwiw.

    2. avatar Denton says:

      I agree. But should people vote for Roy Moore? Is he the exception to “Republican at all costs?”

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        I must’ve missed where Moore was adjudicated guilty. Yeah, in that case can’t vote for him. Now- had he not already been found guilty, and his election came after facing merely allegations, then, of course voting for him would be entirely appropriate. Isn’t that the same position we consider sacrosanct when it comes to gun rights? That not only can’t they be denied, but that we support a person’s ability to exercise their rights until they have their day in court? Due process still matters.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          I agree. Due process still matters. In this case, the vote is coming before the matter can be adjudicated so voters have a harder choice to make. The allegations are piling up though and with details and evidence that is credible and difficult to dismiss outright. Whether it amounts to a crime in Alabama is suspect though. Would you vote for someone who, in his 30’s, dated girls under 18 as young as 15? Is that more or less important than your right to bear arms?

          Also, exercising their rights as a free person is different than electing them to office.

        2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          I despise those that would hurt children. Almost as much as I despise filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™ who pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. There are people that are much worse than Moore (if in fact he is guilty- which is again, currently only an allegation). In fact, one is running against him in this very same election.

        3. avatar Denton says:

          You despise child molester’s less than you despise liberals?

          What makes Doug Jones worse than an if-guilty Roy Moore?

        4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          “What makes Doug Jones worse than an if-guilty Roy Moore?”. He’s a democrat and all that that implies (go look at their official party platform).

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Whole “Roy Moore” thing stinks to me. Why did a 39-year-old allegation sleep through 8 prior political campaigns, then sleep further through the primary, just to spring forth when it is too late to remove him from the ballot? Awfully convenient. I have no clue who all I may have molested 39 years ago, it cannot be proved or disproved, can’t be prosecuted, what it CAN be, is ignored. I think the guy’s a dick, the women may well be telling the truth, but if I lived in AL I would vote for him and proclaim that to the moon.

          Also, reading other responses, the supposed 14-year-old is the ONLY charge he needs to answer, the age of consent in AL was and is 16, a 30-year-old coming on to a girl that age is and was legal.

        6. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          We here mostly all agree that there needs to be a few judges retired or to drop dead.
          Better chance that at least 2 will drop.
          Now if that happens in the next 2 years we might be OK.
          But then the Libitards will scream they werent allowed to vote on whoever. This is assuming and thats a large assumption that Trump runs for term 2. If he does let alone wins??
          Who would replace him??
          Both sides would pick some one currently in the Swamp.
          The odds of a Joe Regular who has never been heard of is remote.
          Our next President will most likely be my last. So I hope whoever it is. Is a good one??

        7. avatar Denton says:

          The only thing different is the atmosphere of acceptance and belief that has swept the nation that is emboldening women to come forward with unprovable claims of harassment. He was/is a powerful prosecutor, judge, and politician. Coming forward isn’t about whether or not a political opponent found you, it’s if you feel like your voice will mean something. Do you think Weinstein or Al Franken’s accuser was also a convenient hack job? In the past if you had evidence you came forward quietly looking for hush money. What are the ladies getting now? Not money and a whole lot of notoriety. If they are getting paid by someone under the table then that would be suspicious and something a good reporter or P.I. would make bank on. I’m sure many are looking.

          You’re right that just dating was legal, but dang if there isn’t a bad vibe from it anyway. There can be a big gap between legal and moral.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The Demoncrats are in an entertaining position regarding “sexual assault”. They need to condemn their own so that they have justification to push Trump out of office. Yet, their knee-jerk reaction to protect their own from criticism leaves Demoncrats with legitimate charges against them, but desperate attempts to “save” those very examples of self-righteousness from harm. Protecting their own sexual predators damages their moral high ground against Trump.

          But, it is all free entertainment.

  21. avatar Darkman says:

    April 19 1774

  22. avatar Darkman says:

    April 19 1775

  23. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    Two words – JUDICIAL COWARDICE.

  24. avatar Sam I Am says:

    One element of this episode is going unnoticed: assault weapons.

    The 4th Circuit (Maryland) defines “assault weapons”, and declares that the Scalia “reasonable restriction” finding allows Maryland to ban semi-automatic weapons because semi-automatic weapons are “like” full auto weapons. It appears that the 4th defined any semi-automatic gun as being “like” full auto weapons, therefore “assault weapons”. I do not know yet how the 4th argued that guns “in common use for lawful purposes” do not include semi-auto guns of all types, unless it is considered defacto obvious that full automatic weapons are not “in common use for lawful purposes”, therefore any gun declared to be “like” an automatic weapon is therefore not a gun “in common use”.

    I just got an email from one of my buddies in Colorado. It was the reason for this commentary. My buddie says Demoncrats are already preparing legislation to ban semi-auto guns, using the Maryland law itself, and the precedence of SC refusal to address “gun rights” since 2010.

  25. avatar Wally1 says:

    The founding fathers would be shooting by now! The liberal leftists will keep it up until there is a civil war.

  26. avatar sound awake says:

    the colonists put up with a whole lotta crap and would have likely put up with a lot more had it not been for what the british tried to do at lexington and concord

    the attempted seizing of arms was the last straw that sparked the war of independence

    whats past is prologue and those powers that be that fail to grasp the fact that the first and foremost law of nature is self preservation do so at their own and not our peril

    as it so happens the current national command structure precludes this type of scenario

    im not so sure that would be the case if hillary had won

    she voted against the vitter amendment in 2007

    she thinks its totally ok for the government to confiscate peoples guns

    she used the word irredeemable in a sentence to describe her detractors

    its more likely than not that when she said irredeemable what she really meant was enemies of the state

    her not winning the election may end up being the biggest bullet this country ever dodged

    1. avatar Cadeyrn says:

      … all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Yes, yes. We’ve heard all that ad infinitum. Yet the nation remains at peace, doesn’t it? Should tell you something.

  27. avatar 2Asux says:

    Too sweet. Much sooner than I imagined. Now we have something upon which to build momentum. The Supreme Court is not going to move beyond Heller and McDonald, allowing the lower courts to fill in the blanks. States rights, and all that.

    Oh, non-compliance is not really effective. Failure to surrender banned firearms (if required) need not be addressed. Simply tightening regulations such that having a firearm outside the home and connected property will render private firearms almost useless, meaning normal people can go about without the fear of some over-stressed, immature “good guy” deciding in an instant to solve all his problems by random killings.

    Mick Jagger was, and remains, corredt: “Time is on my side.”

    1. avatar NJ_Doc says:

      “You can’t always get what you want”. FIFY

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You can’t always get what you want”. FIFY

        “Good things comes to those who wait.”

  28. avatar Slow Joe Crow says:

    I’m very disappointed the court wimped out because the appellate ruling in Kolbe was a complete inversion of Heller, because feelz and the ruling should have been slapped down hard, or at least remanded for strict scrutiny where they couldn’t weasel out.

  29. avatar Kyle says:

    I think Kennedy is the big risk. He is who made Scalia put in the “reasonable restrictions” phrase in order to get his vote. Right now, with the Court being at best 5-4, I’d rather such cases wait until another Trump justices could hopefully be installed that would likely strike such a law down.

  30. avatar Thomas E Schaefer says:

    THIS… Just proovs
    A) That the courts give a shit about the people’s rghts…
    B) So-called “Activist Judges” have no place because they are a SERIOUS DANGER to the court system.
    C) Narcicistic Egomaniacs on ANY court bench are a Serious Threat to the Constitution.

  31. avatar Skyviking says:

    The problem is not recognizing that to the Left and the “swamp”, we the people are regarded as the enemy: dullards and dolts who “need” to be led by their betters. The politicians in the state capitols and D.C. are career Statists who see the public’s tax dollars as their own pocketbook and do not care one whit about raising taxes on everybody who works to give money to those increasing numbers who do not, so as to buy their vote and maintain their iron fist on power. A prime example is congress critters using OUR tax dollars to pay hush money for their own sexual harassment conduct. EVERYONE who was involved in this and/or knew of this should be charged and arrested and impeached. Where the hell was Jeff Sessions on this? That’s why Everyone in Congress really wants Trump to fail. They don’t care if Hillary-or anybody else in the Club-put our national security at risk. They just want to keep us polarized and thus, keep themselves in power. Trump is not in the club and they’ve got nothing on him.
    The revolution against the Constitution and We the People has already started, just like Islam’s war on Western Culture and Society has never stopped. We have just been to preoccupied to notice.

  32. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

    Here’s my hope. The judges who would move to overturn the lower court ruling knew they were in the minority. They also know that Trump will eventually appoint more judges that will be with them. So instead of voting to hear the case and see it upheld they moved to not hear the case knowing it will be back when the majority will move to overturn.

  33. avatar cisco kid says:

    As I have said on numerous occasions the Corrupt Supreme Court has down through its corrupt history always voted with public opinion and with mass shootings happening almost weekly it was not unexpected that they shit on the Scalia/ Heller Case which in no uncertain terms did say owning semi-auto guns were legal if anyone bothers to read through the ruling.

    We can thank the original Swamp Rats the Founding Fathers who deliberately wrote the Second Amendment in the vaguest of terms to give them wiggle room to ban the future ownership of firearms by the public because the Founding Father Swamp Rats feared true democracy that’s why they fucked the American people out of true Democracy and instead of adopting a Parliamentary form of government instead adopted a representative government founded by the filthy rich and for the filthy rich. Except for the Heller decision down through the decades and decades of gun bans and confiscations the rats of the Supreme Court either refused to hear the cases or outright sided with the gun banners and that included Conservative Justices as well. So it goes today as well with even Clarence Thomas suddenly falling completely silent on the latest outright rape of the Second Amendment.

    Yes my dearest Moron Conservatives the Republicans fucked you all big time this time around and you can as I have said time and time again whether you are liberal or conservative you may as well take the Constitution and wipe our dirty ass with it because the Constitution does not say what it means rather it says what the Rats who run the Supreme Court says it means no matter how big a blatant lie they have to vomit out about it. What a joke, what a laugh and don’t expect the Supreme Court to ever hear a Second Amendment case for decades and decades to come considering all the mass shootings we have in this country. With the coming 2018 and 2020 elections all modern semi-auto firearms will be on the Democratic hit list and you can kiss them all goodbye because the California style confiscation law that is now in effect will be next adopted by all the liberal east coast states as well and its only a matter of time before most other states will be sending the smiling jack booted thugs in sun glasses to scoop up thousands of semi-auto pistols and rifles thrown out into the streets to be scooped up Australian style and taken to the smelters while the News Media rants a new utopian second coming of the gun ban god of salvation is now upon us all.

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