BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Cert In All Pending Second Amendment Cases

Supreme Court Gun Case New York

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

By LKB

Well, it has happened. Rather than the hoped-for clarification of the Second Amendment and the resolution of numerous Circuit Court splits, this morning the Supreme Court denied cert on all ten outstanding petitions in Second Amendment cases.

To no one’s surprise, Justice Thomas issued a scathing dissent in Rogers v. Grewal, pointing out once again how lower courts are simply disregarding Heller and MacDonald. He was joined in this dissent by Kavanaugh.

We thus know that there are four very solid pro 2A Justices on the Court, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. That being the case, why were all these petitions denied (it only takes four votes to grant cert)?  The only reason I case see for the Court’s reluctance to take another Second Amendment case is that they now fear – or know – that Chief Justice Roberts has gone wobbly.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts (Senate Television via AP)

We are thus back to the same situation we faced when Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote. That means nothing is likely going to get be granted review because of the fear that Roberts would, as is becoming his custom, chicken out and vote to gut Heller and MacDonald. The pro-2A minority has made the calculation that it’s better to deny cert to these cases than to risk a decision that could adversely affect gun rights.

This situation will only embolden courts like the Ninth Circuit to continue to ignore the Heller decision.

Unless and until there’s a new justice on the Supreme Court, about the only way forward will be if a conservative circuit (such as the Fifth) takes a page from the left’s playbook and issues a sweeping pro-2A decision, knowing that the Supreme Court is paralyzed and will not act on it. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen.

Here’s the AP’s report:

The Supreme Court on Monday passed up several challenges to federal and state gun control laws, over the dissent of two conservative justices.

Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.

Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, “the Court simply looks the other way.”

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    BREAKING: You’re on your own! Pretend you’re a BLM or Antifa jag. Lock n load…

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      Pretty obviousness the Supreme Court doesn’t give a damn about the civil rights written on parchment.
      They prefer imaginary rights they have made up,

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

        So when do we riot and burn all the gun shops?
        Oh wait…

      2. avatar Dennis Osiwala says:

        Nailed it !
        Gutless Wonders on court.

      3. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Maybe we can get them to write us a qualified immunity doctrine? Law enforcement has theirs…

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Maybe we can get them to write us…”

          What’s this metaphoric “we” shit, Cheif? You expend great effort here showing us you’re no friend of the 2A…

      4. avatar Thixotropic says:

        Roberts is showing himself to be a Bush (the lesser) Neocon Leftist and he is proving Thomas Jefferson to be correct again:

        “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet…”
        Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie

    2. avatar Debbie W. says:

      The problem is far too many people on this forum are in the Do It For Me crowd waiting on the USSC to decide what common sense has already decided long ago.
      If you don’t want gun control then get off your DIFM behind and stand up and get slackers to go vote otherwise it will be a president obiden and a bitch from hell that is along the lines of a hilliary rotten clintoon.
      Very few on this forum equate gun control with its racist and genocide history and instead go about laying the same old worn out reasons for keeping their guns at the feet of gun control zealots. You want to stop a gun control zealot then you hang the racist and genocide banner around their necks because that is where it belongs. Whether people realize it or not the democRat Party is gradually rewriting history to whitewash their democRat Party sleaze.
      So for whom it may concern…wipe the crybaby snot off your faces, study the racist atrocities of the democRat Party and for a change put the democRat Party on their gun control knees.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Are you sure you aren’t two separate people using the same username? Sometimes “Debbie” posts solid comments written clearly, and other times we see rants with poor spelling and grammar. It’s as if mommy Debbie writes, and her 12-yr-old son swoops in and pounds on the keyboard while mommy is taking a potty break.

        1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          Yea. The poor grammar is telling.

        2. avatar Covfefe-19 says:

          I have at times wondered if Debbie W’s real name is Ivanka T.

        3. avatar The Grey Man says:

          And I wonder if Debbie W is really Covfefe-19 ??!!

        4. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          or maybe it’s the Scotch & water – sans the water!

      2. avatar bruno says:

        so, you want us gun owners to wipe the crybaby snot off our faces, and act like crybabies with snot all over our faces?

        no thanks we won’t adopt the tactics of the left, playing the race card and making up bullshit excuses to get our way. we don’t do that.

      3. avatar The Sergeant Major says:

        Because your comment is heavily weighted toward hating the Republican Party I assume you are a Democratic Party Lover. Therefore you are for the lame brained Democrats, Liberals and Progressives (Pelosi, Biden, Bloomberg, etc) who want only to introduce legislation which curtails/limits the rights (Unconstitutional) of legal gun owners and those who can pass a background check and doesn’t do anything to put the illegal owners/ those who have stolen and posses stolen and black market weapons, etc. You need to come down from your high tree, either quit taking drugs or start taking your prescribed medication and return to reality where you can discern right from wrong and logically compare and contrast two ideas at once.

        1. avatar Risky325 says:

          It amazes me, the blind following the republicans get no matter what they do. You probably backed Romney and McCain too. You cannot see that the left asks for 100% of something and the republicans counter by giving them 50%. Either way it is a slide towards the left. The republicans, with very few exceptions, do not stand for us. Trump goes for jailbreak. Out go convicts to rob, rape and murder again. All while we take what little scraps we are given and expected to bend over and ask for more. I live with this crap in my state DeWINE, Portman. BS. The left doesn’t put up with the half assed politicians on their side. Why do we. Look at the Liberty score of most republicans. They are just as bad if not worse than the Democratic’s. Gloves need to come off. To quote Thanos- “fine, I’ll do it myself”.

      4. avatar PhatMan says:

        Stop you delirium rant!

      5. avatar Stephen Cook says:

        Debbie W. you are spot on, you said it way better than I ever could!!!!

    3. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Antifa likes guns. They need them. You can’t have a revolution with only love.

      Black Americans are now calling for black people to arm themselves and exercise their rights. That’s all I hear now after George Floyd was killed. The Black Panthers did that a long time ago. Now this generation wants to arm up and they are (relative to the Obama years).

      You got to change the culture. If 13% of Americans want to arm up now, you should strike when the iron is hot. It would be a lot harder to convince anti gun white Americans to become pro gun. The focus should be heavily on women and black people.

      1. avatar dave says:

        what the hell are you talking about?

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          I’m talking about getting more Americans armed so the government can’t take our rights away. The government acts as if we don’t need guns anymore because the government has police now and that certain guns should be banned from citizens because they are not in common use. We need heard immunity against gun control.

      2. avatar Jeff says:

        Antifa isn’t fighting for anything. They are only fighting against fascists. The only revolution they are fighting is the one against fascists taking over the Republican party.

        But everything else you said, absolutely. The more people who realize the police aren’t here to defend us, the better. The more who arm themselves with more than their grandpappy’s old shotgun, the better for gun control laws dying in the vine.

        1. avatar Fergus Boone says:

          Jeff you make Antifa and BLM look like really, really facistic and racist organizations. You deserve the thanks of all Antifa and BLM followers everywhere for confirming what every normal person all ready knew.

        2. avatar Will Larimer says:

          That is the most amazingly wrong comment on the thread. Antifa is as anti fascism as the patriot act is patriotic. It’s simply another case of demonic rat projection thinking.

      3. avatar Fergus Boone says:

        That 13% of the population is mostly ineligible to own guns legally since over a third of the adult population are felons. That’s just men. Women probably lesser numbers but at least 10%.

        So the Chief BS Artist tells us not to fear that the usual animals want to disarm us, including you guessed it, the Chief BS Artist.

        No thanks the Constitution is clear and SCOTUS is a bad joke and warrants the respect of a maggot invested Al Sharpton or Ginsburg.

    4. avatar CanoeIt says:

      As long as Hitlery walks free, and SCOTUS turns a blind eye to the true rights of the citizens, I fear the rule of law is dead…I hope Im wrong.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        The Bill of Rights died a long time ago. Only the democratic portion of the constitution is still being used (for now).

        1. avatar Fergus Boone says:

          The Chief BS Artist tells us in his normal concise and intelligent way that only the democratic portions of the Constitution are being used.

          What are you a member of SCOTUS or a Biden speech writer?

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Remember how absurd it was when democrats in 2010 were still talking about how Bush was the fault of everything wrong in the nation?

        You’re worse. Hillary wasn’t even president and you’re still going to pretend that everything is her fault. Blame the guy you elected. Hillary didn’t ban bump stocks.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          She was Secretary of state, senator, and her husband was President. They did a lot of damage in their time.

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Hillary didn’t ban bump stocks.”

          Had Hillary made the last two SCOTUS justice pics, fucking ‘bump-stocks’ would have been the very least of our problems.

          Wholesale semi-auto bans would have been fair game, and ‘Heller’ could have been gutted in a few years…

        3. avatar Midwest Conservative says:

          Hillary is not to blame ! But her asshole liar of a husband oversaw the distruction of respect for the oval office and the rule of law. (We have been on a steep down slide ever since.) Then came along Bush who put that ashole in as chief justice. Paving the way for Balack Osama to destroy health care and race relations. It may not be Hillary`s fault but she would have done the same or worse.

    5. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I wonder if the people of CHAZ enforce the government’s will to disarm them and stop them from having those pesky NFA items? I have seen a few men out there with rifles walking around. Maybe we should join them in following our own rules instead of the corrupt government’s? They can have their 7 blocks and we can have ours. We just have to agree the government is bad and police shouldn’t be allowed in to enforce bad rules in our sanctuary from corrupt politicians.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Or maybe we shouldn’t join them because these thugs now extorting businesses and families for “protection” money to the tune of $500/week, and confiscating or destroying property that doesn’t belong to them regardless. Not to mention the sharp increase in trouble calls coming from the area for rape, robbery, and homicide after the “CHAZ” was foisted upon the residents there that wanted less than nothing to do with it.

        Were they consulted before their neighborhood was taken over? Were any of them asked to be part of this so-called “revolution”?

        No, this isn’t a revolution, it’s an invasion. Not only must it be repelled, but the commie racist pieces of shit (but I REPEAT myself) participating in it must be brought to justice.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWjQOnrZRg

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Not only must it be repelled, but the commie racist pieces of shit (but I REPEAT myself) participating in it must be brought to justice.”

          Something-something “Against all enemies, foreign and domestic”…

      2. avatar Skylight says:

        Now you’re getting close to the matter. You see, The sheriff has more power than any official when it comes to his county. You people should realize that and as long as the sheriff believes in the Constitution of these United States of America and his or her oath of office the sheriff has the final say so on the law. Your governor can say the law says all he wants to but as long as our constitution exist and you have a sheriff that stands behind that Constitution the governor has no say so as to if you can own a gun or not in that county. The sheriff is the law, not the governor. If the sheriff says you can not enforce that law in my county the governor can’t do a thing about it. So, If you people have an elected sheriff just be sure that the sheriff you elect will stand by his oath to the office in which he or she holds and your guns are safe. People need to remember that when it comes time to elect the sheriff. The Sheriff is a very important person when it comes to your rights. Be sure and ask questions of whom ever you intend to elect to be your Sheriff.

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          The problem is the governor holds the purse strings. I don’t think that requires further explanation.

        2. avatar Will Larimer says:

          It’s problematic when the same people who elect scum to other offices, elect the sheriff. He’s likely to be scum just like the rest.

    6. avatar Vincent Cane Jr. says:

      TOOOO TRUE…

    7. avatar Chris Robinette says:

      YES, We, the legal, law abiding American people are on our own, therefore UNTIL the SCOTUS rules on the existing constitutional 2nd amendment as it is any ruling by an inferior US district judge is to be ignored. Happy hunting Patriots.

  2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    So, for today’s lesson, class…

    ATF is not our friend.
    SCOTUS is not our friend.
    In most states, your Governor and/or Mayor are not your friends.
    BLM…yes!
    Looting…yes please!
    Riots, arson…Leftist politicians say they’re “peaceful” protests.
    Entire police departments resigning? It’s happening.
    Antifa openly saying they’re coming for the suburbs?…

    …lock and load. We’re now living in the Upside Down.

    1. avatar Lynx says:

      “Antifa” isn’t a group, it’s the activity of opposing organized white supremacists. And no, there are no busses of “antifa” coming to your suburb. You are being played by people who benefit from your fear.

      If you want to defend the second amendment you should be glad more leftists are buying guns than any time since the 70’s. The anti-gun liberals are now flanked on both sides.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        You have it backwards.

        Opposing white supremacy? You just described the manifesto of BLM, as shown on their website.

        https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

        Antifa (United States) opposes capitalism. As described on their Wikipedia page:

        “Individuals involvement in the antifa movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist and anti-government views, subscribing to a varied range of left-wing ideologies. A majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

      2. avatar Steve says:

        What? That’s the biggest load of crap ever. A clearly documented criminal organization with a website, funding, that issues public statements from their leadership. What planet do you live on. Or are you paid to post this crap.

        1. avatar Lynx says:

          There is no “leadership” or website for Antifa because it is not an organization.

          There WAS a fake twitter account run by a white supremacist group that claimed to be antifa leadership. That’s where the rumor of antifa bussing people to the suburbs started. The whole thing was a fakeout. Source: https://www.dw.com/en/twitter-suspends-fake-antifa-account-run-by-white-supremacists/a-53656003

          Again, you are being manipulated.

        2. avatar DL says:

          @ Lynks my state’s BLM certainly is an organisation, it is a c3 with board, tax filings etc

          and BLM supporters certainly have engaged in illegal activity including felonious rioting, and in Texas, mass murder of cops.

      3. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Wtf? No. Just no.

      4. avatar Ing says:

        “…you should be glad more leftists are buying guns than any time since the 70’s.”

        Because the ’60s and ’70s were peaceful, idyllic times when all was peaceful and Second Amendment rights flourished?

        Leftist gun buyers today will do exactly what leftists gun buyers did then — exploit the freedom we value to cause havoc and violence, blame all on normal Americans like some gaslighting domestic abuser, and support laws to disarm the dumb law-abiding rubes — because only losers obey the law, and they intend to *be* the law that everyone else obeys.

        And when they get old enough, they’ll calm down and merge with the establishment — that’s how you get the cabal of anti-gun corruptocrats that occupies the upper echelons of the Democratic party. Again, none of this advances our Second Amendment rights, because none of these people support *any* Constitutional rights.

        Don’t be fooled; any Leftist support for the Second Amendment, the Constitution, or the equal rule of law is temporary and exists only because it gives them a situational advantage or helps them hamstring their opponents. (Yes, I’m aware that there are many who call themselves leftists and are honorable people; if the radical socialist revolution succeeds, they’ll be among the first marked for elimination.)

        1. avatar Mike V says:

          Well said.

        2. avatar Child of the 60`s says:

          “The 60`s and 70`s were peaceful idyllic times” What rock did you spend 20 years under ? Viet Nam , Kent state , Manson, Democrat convention, Iran hostages, the list goes on and on. What year did you wake up Mr Vanwinkle?

        3. avatar Timothy Leary says:

          OH COME ON ! Honorable leftists? That must have been some really high doses you dropped in 69. Unicorns are much easier to find than an honorable leftist !

      5. avatar Casey says:

        I live in a suburb of St Louis and I literally saw a bus show up to the local protest and unload a bunch of dudes with signs and clubs.

        So don’t tell me Antifa isn’t getting bussed in. They didn’t cross the bridge on foot.

        1. avatar Well Armed says:

          Sorry to hear that you live in a suburb of St Louis . I went there for the NRA annual meeting in 2013(I think that was the year). What a shithole…… I’ve seen cleaner septic tanks.

      6. avatar Fergus Boone says:

        Lynx tells us Antifa isn’t a group, followed by “these aren’t the droids you are looking for, sleep, there’s nothing the matter here just the Rotary club having a block party.”

        Designate them a terrorist group make such activities a federal crime, use the RICO standards to go after the Nazi collaborators who fund them, Gates and his silicon valley crew, the Tides foundation and all the rest and seize their assets.

        The watch Lynx deny that Antifa existed or that she was a member that torched three stores. Terrorists should always be terminated with extreme prejudice. I’d force them to listen to a looped tape of Obama’s speeches till they killed themselves, I figure that would take about 6 hurs.

  3. avatar enuf says:

    Well … shit.

    1. avatar Randy Jones says:

      That is an excellent reply. Though it is only as helpful as the Supreme Court.

      1. avatar Ryno says:

        Hmm… I disagree. At least HIS reply makes some kind of sense. SCOTUS denying cert… not so much.

  4. avatar 24and7 says:

    All this talk about trumps new supreme court justices was an absolute joke…They have done absolutely nothing in favor of the Second Amendment…This proves the Second Amendment is a dying issue….

    1. This is unquestionably bad news, but a little perspective. Roberts can’t be blamed on Trump.

      Trump’s appointees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, have given every indication that they’re anxious for another 2A case to expand on Heller and McDonald. The problem is, they (along with Thomas and Alito) can’t predict and don’t trust what Roberts might do.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        Not in total agreement with that sentiment. Kavanaugh himself stated:

        – fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.

        Kavanaugh on GCA 1968, and by extension NFA 1934 in US v. Davis:

        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/18-431/

        Put succinctly, he will never budge on GCA 1968, nor NFA 1934. And by default, that of course includes Hughes. His mental gymnastics in avoiding cert on NYSRPA v. City of NY completely withstanding in making my case. I’d hoped given the working over Congress gave him, he’d have gone full hard Thomas, but that is most definitely not the situation here.

        You guys are putting your faith in the wrong man. My personal prediction is that he’s going to end up a Roberts Mk. 2 mod 0 in the end.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          My thoughts exactly.

        2. avatar dave says:

          I don’t care if they have been “traditionally banned” it’s a matter of rights and what part of “shall not be infringed” does he not understand? hey if he wants Law to be based on tradition he can go live in the fucking Congo.

          and the NFA is not constitutional because it is essentially nothing more than a federal tax on certain types of weapon.

        3. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          Kavanaugh also ruled in a district court that semi-auto rifle bans were no different than banning a class of speech, and therefore, unconstitutional…

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          As a lower court judge, he was following the dictates of the Supreme Court. Scalia specificallynl said mg restrictions were a-ok is Heller.

        5. avatar bobbyfromclearwater says:

          As long as there’s a $200 tax stamp and a Form 4, they are technically not “banned.” Subjected to onerous restrictions and discriminatory taxation, yes. Priced out of the marketplace, of course,

        6. avatar 9x39 says:

          Re: Banned

          Of course, but it does illustrate perfectly Kavanaugh’s lack of knowledge regarding the 2nd, and the law that surrounds occludes it.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        “Roberts has gone wobbly” is yet another in a long line of excuses to justify doing nothing.

        And it’s a poor excuse. Claiming that we need to prevent a bad ruling is absurd. We’re already living in the bad ruling. “Silence is consent.”

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Well, the article’s author does mention that he believes Trump’s two appointees (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) seem to be among the four that lean pro-2A,…I’m not following your logic why you said they’re the problem here.

    3. avatar LKB says:

      Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aren’t the problem. It’s Roberts (Bush appointee).

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        A Pox on Robert’s house, or at the least, a nasty China flu…

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Cat AIDS. A curse that he gets cat AIDS. Not cat HIV. Full blown cat AIDS. And it starts in his taint.
          (I’m not sure how that works, I’m only a doctor in Afghanistan. But here’s hoping science finds a way. A way to give Justice Roberts cat AIDS.)

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Roberts cannot deny cert over 4 other members. This is another excuse to pull the wool over your eyes. And the idea that they have to refuse cert because they might get a bad ruling is, at this point, ridiculous. We are living in that world already.

        If Trump managed to get another justice confirmed the same thing would happen except we’d hear about another life-appointed GOP-selected judge suddenly going ‘soft.’

        1. avatar LKB says:

          Roberts cannot deny cert if there are four votes for it. However, anyone with a modicum of Supreme Court experience well knows that the justices are always thinking ahead — especially whether they “can get to five” on a contentious issue. On a hot button case where a failure to “get to five” would cause things to get worse (imagine a result where Heller and MacDonald are vacated entirely), you’re fooling yourself if you don’t think they don’t cast their cert votes accordingly.

    4. avatar Fergus Boone says:

      The second amendment is such a dying issue that citizens are buying over 2 million guns monthly. Guess you commies must be doing something right.

  5. avatar Mike V says:

    We must win in November, let’s get to it.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Who is “we”?

      You mean vote for the same “we” that has been saying it was going to improve 2nd Amendment rights for the last few decades but always finds an excuse not to and then says “we” should just elect them ONE MORE TIME and it’ll happen?

      The same one that refused to do anything for the hearing protection act or carrying reciprocity act despite holding all three branches of government?

      Or the President who managed to institute more gun control in his first 2 years than Obama did in 8?

      I’m sure they are very happy with your loyalty to them. Are you happy with their loyalty to you?

      1. avatar Fergus Boone says:

        Hannibal tells us that Trump is worse than Obama on gun controls. One shutters to think what would have happened had not Obama’s gun running to the cartels been exposed effectively ending any chance of him trying to end our 2nd amendment rights. So the usual suspects focused on state and local governments to curtail gun rights. A temporary and costly victory was achieved that will end with the next election cycles as the Dems have proven themselves pure Marxist extremists who will allow Antifa and BLM to run wild while law abiding citizens are treated like peons.

  6. avatar david lindsey says:

    re elect trump– get at least one more conservative on there

    1. avatar Chichi Montezuma says:

      If we just get one more…
      If we just get a pro-2A POTUS…
      All we need is for congress/ATF/whateverlegislation…

      Our community sounds like a beaten wife bargaining with herself about how to deal with being abused. Free persons demand what is theirs.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        And BOOM! goes the dynamite. Truth 101.

      2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

        We don’t really have a good option, either “vote for us, we support the second amendment, but whoops, we don’t have the votes, so we are just going to sit on the pro 2a bills, in fact, you won’t even hear us publicly support 2a. Maybe deregulate silencers, whoops, some people died, nah, not going to push for that, how about banning bump stocks, red flag laws, some NICs checks, that is what you wanted right? How about some background checks on private transfers? Maybe we could have a conversation on mag limits or a moratorium on AR sales?” That’s the Republican side, then the Dems are full “we are coming for you, gun manufacturers! We are going to take your ARs, America! Oh btw, I have an old shotgun and I know a hunter, of course we support the 2A.”

        The plan of attack is “hold your nose, vote Republican” and your rights will go away more slowly. Not sure what else we can do, sure let’s try for one more supreme court justice but is that really going to finally validate the second amendment? We will see.

        The Republicans need to be held accountable for their failings at some point, instead of getting a continual pass.

        1. avatar Chichi Montezuma says:

          Exactly. What we need is a change in approach. We need to be aggressively pursuing our rights harder than Bloomberg’s little busybody sycophants. Any fudd pols unwilling to get on board need to be blasted for being un-American liberal wolves in sheep’s clothing. Frame the criticism in terms that make casual conservatives and independents think these guys hangout with Antifa on weekends. We need to be smart about how we act so we get results instead of getting frauds buying expensive suits and paying for intern girlfriend’s rent pretending to represent us.

          If all we do is react to the latest assault on our freedoms we’ll never win. It doesn’t take billions or very large numbers either.

        2. avatar DL says:

          We don’t really have a good option, either …
          The Republicans need to be held accountable for their failings at some point, instead of getting a continual pass.

          so you are going to just reject all the evidence. how do you think the four Democrat appointments would have ruled on this?

        3. avatar WilliamWallaceTheThird says:

          The one thing I’d suggest, is also the one thing I Cannae suggest.

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” The Republicans need to be held accountable for their failings at some point, instead of getting a continual pass. ”

          I agree totally. But holding the Republicans accountable at a time when they are the only line of defense for 2A is a bad move. It’s actually pretty pathetic that the Republicans are the only line of defense– that’s about as close as can get to saying there is no defense at all. But that’s where we’re at. The Democrats have made it absolutely clear that if they get total power, 2A is gone, so there’s no use in trying to salvage them and bring them around to a proper way of thinking. The Republicans are at least quiet on the issue, with a few strong advocates floating around, so they can possibly be reasoned with.

          The best strategy, then, is for everyone a) get off the ass and vote; and b) vote Republican, or at least vote anyone but a Democrat. Once the Democrats are thoroughly smashed to the point that power is out of their reach for the near-future, that is the time to turn around and start spanking the non-2A Republicans by way of primary challenges. But putting Republicans of any stripe in jeopardy while the Democrats are a known and solid threat is, IMHO, a terrible strategy.

        5. avatar Minigun says:

          Strong 3rd party candidates should switch to Republican so they have a chance to win.

  7. avatar tracy says:

    Just one more reason to despise President Bush.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      At least he was a “real” republican. /sarc

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        In 12 years people will be talking about they have to vote GOP because those wishy washy Trump appointees aren’t doing anything. Then 8 years after that it will be the next guy’s appointees that are soft.

        It’s almost as if it’s a game where someone keeps pulling the football out from under you.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Roberts had all the appearance and backstory of a reasonable conservative at the time GWB nominated him. Problem is that Roberts started to slide Centrist, and then when Kennedy vacated the Chief seat, Roberts picked up the torch and now seems to be following in the same style of enjoying the notoriety of being an unpredictable swing vote that gets all the media attention.

      I don’t blame Bush. I lay this blame squarely at Roberts’ feet. He’s the one who’s casting the poor votes.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Uh huh. WHY is it ONLY so-called “conservative” judges turn leftard?!? Ledtist judges NEVER go right! I blame W for a lot…

      2. avatar RedEagle says:

        Wrong X100.

        knew Roberts was a RINO.

        Why did I know that?
        Because I can see rat in his eyes.
        Because he was appointed by a RINO
        Bush’s granddaddy was a nazi sympathizer.

        Americans are protected by the small minority of logical adults.
        Vote
        Vote
        Vote
        Congregate
        Gather
        Meet
        Work together to lift up “rights” and ideals.

        We all can agree Bush was just as bad for this country as Obama.

        Even if you want to argue about redundancy.. it’s counter productive.

        They had the same handlers..
        Let me give you a hint. They are not guided by the constitution, but corporations and globalists elites.

        Never forget how great this country is.
        Never forget that American Nationalism is and only is nationalism because we stopped growing our boarders.

        Maybe that’s what we should be doing? Look at other nations, Canada and Mexico as two examples, they all operate under a lesser laws that have US federal government woven into their societies.

        Honestly we need to grow more the grass grows green and the sky is blue for a reason!

        God bless You all regardless of your faith you ⭐️

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “ Congregate
          Gather
          Meet”
          Native Americans say rubbing elbows is good medicine. Safety in numbers.
          March forward, shoulder to shoulder!

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Well, RedEagle said it (albeit after a long, mostly rambling rant), so it must be true. He smelled out Roberts as the RINO rat he is way back at the beginning, and nobody else did.

        3. avatar KenW says:

          RedEagle , Fred Trump Sr.was a member of Amerikadeutscher Bund . Lots of prominent Americans of that time belonged to organizations that now are vilified. Fred also was a member of the KKK as were many in that era. And magically changed from a German American to Swedish American around the same time he was becoming active in the mafia. Anyway what Dad or grandad did should not matter. unlike North Korea we do not punish great grandchildren for the sins of their relatives.

      3. avatar LKB says:

        I’ve heard rumors for years from some of my DC connections that there is something in Roberts’ past (some say it’s about how he was able to adopt his kids (they are from Ireland, but Irish law does not allow its citizens to be adopted by foreigners), some say it is something more sinister), and that it was a threat by the Obama administration to release it that caused his last-minute switch on the O-care decision.

        Given that he’s now plainly following in the footsteps of Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, and late-stage Kennedy, if the rumors are true I wish someone could find out what it is and burn him with it.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “there is something in Roberts’ past (some say it’s about how he was able to adopt his kids (they are from Ireland, but Irish law does not allow its citizens to be adopted by foreigners), some say it is something more sinister), and that it was a threat by the Obama administration”

          Oh yeah, that’s a great one, but you left out the part about ‘many people are saying‘.

          In the gay Nazialiens, don’t forget them, they’re in it up to their 16 eyeballs!

          John Bolton’s book is out and he slams the chaos in the administration, clearly he is working with the aliens to bring Trump down!

          And the president’s niece, Mary Trump, Is an accomplice to the conspiracy, her new book is filled with nothing but rumors about Trump, of course Obama is involved!

        2. avatar DL says:

          @Miner, lots of former administration officials from Carter, Clinton and Obama administration have been highly critical. Like Bolton they do it out of resentment or for the money.

          Your bringing that into a discussion on gun control and this cert issue (and your posts show you support gun bans) says nothing about the issue, but says plenty about your self — you are a rabid and hysterical poster who uses strawmen and red herrings constantly.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Down Low,

          Sorry old man, I’m just following LKB’s lead, nothing I can post will equal his claim about a “threat by the Obama administration” against Chief Justice Roberts.

          The power of Obama’s control, almost 4 years after he left office, is staggering, I just can’t understand why all these old white guys are so afraid of him.

        4. avatar Name withheld says:

          They believe the old saying.
          Once you go black, you’ll never go back.

      4. avatar Anymouse says:

        Robert’s isn’t an originalist, like Scalia was. He says he believes that the Judiciary should be give Congress the benefit of the doubt and only stop the most egregious portion of a law with the minimal changes or restrictions. He thinks bad policy should be fixed by Congress, not the courts. It’s almost a pre-Marbury v. Madison view, but the problem is the other side has no problem legislating from the bench or ignoring the Constitution to get the results they want. Ironically, that’s the way Kavanaugh took is his dissent for the LGBT cases: Congress is free to make sexual orientation and trans identity protected Title VII classes, but it hasn’t, so they aren’t. Robert’s went with the majority instead of his purported philosophy.

    3. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Not so fast…GW allowed the clintoon assault weapon ban to expire which is why today you have more firearms and ammo varieties than you can shake a stick at.
      Most everyone including Bush2 had high expectations for Roberts and he turned out to be a wishywashy turd in the punch bowl…much like the knee jerk poops who unjustly bashed a former POTUS.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        No, congress didn’t reauthorize it. GW never even had to veto a re-authorization. Republican senators like Michael Castle (DE) and Mark Kirk (IL) tried to help the Dems to restore it but failed.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Rino mike castle was a representative not a senator.

      2. avatar Frank Groth says:

        Conveniently leaving out the fact that Bush 43 said for the record he would sign an extension of the 1994 federal AWB if the Congress passed it and sent it to him.

        1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          The disconnect with most the posters on here and reality is something else. Republicans are nearly as bad on gun rights as Democrats. You are wasting your effort trying to explain it to them.

          Here is my surprised face that cert was denied. Where is Powerserge to tell us this is some secret maneuvering to overturn NFA?

        2. avatar DL says:

          “Republicans are nearly as bad on gun rights as Democrats“

          Stop the [email protected] All data says otherwise. Yes there are outliers but in fact there is no issue in all of US politics with a clearer partisan divide than Second Amendment. In fact 25 years ago you could find some democrat lawmakers not willing to just end the Second Amendment, but today there are way way less.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      The Patriot Act is the only reason I need to despise George W. Bush. And everyone who voted for it in Congress.

      1. avatar Weapon of War says:

        At least someone finally said it. That thing was a wet dream for every jackboot in the US. Patriot Act indeed….

  8. avatar Leigh says:

    one or both of the ladies should pass soon…neither are in great shape…
    let’s hope Trump gets re-elected and gets to appoint a couple more…
    should be age limits for SC justices…just sayin’…

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “one or both of the ladies should pass soon…neither are in great shape…”

      ‘Ladies’ is kinda pushing it, don’t you think, the way they treat the Constitution?

      Anyways – Being overweight and diabetic is not a formula for a long life. C’mon, Wuhan flu! Do your thing! 🙂

    2. avatar Weapon of War says:

      They won’t kack until the next Democratic swine is running the show. Their hate of our republic keeps them going. And Satan too….

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        They’ll keep their desiccated corpses attached to heart/lung machines for decades, if necessary, so they can claim that they’re technically still alive until a Dem becomes President.

  9. avatar 9x39 says:

    As I said before, awaiting SCOTUS to return our rights in toto is foolhardy. History itself proves that beyond the shadow of doubt.

    1. avatar Chichi Montezuma says:

      Hear! Hear!

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Someone needs to remind everyone that the Supreme Court issues opinions and the legislature writes and passes laws. The legislature is the one that should fix this but we will need the Convention of States to fix the legislature first.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        The Supreme Court is also capable of vacating those laws deemed non-legal &/or Unconstitutional. Yet in many cases, they have failed to act.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          That should be a strategy used. In 2016 the GOP held all branches of government. Even if one assumes SCOTUS cannot be ‘held’ in that way, they had Congress and the Presidency.

          So, what did they do on 2nd A rights?

          (*crickets*)

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          So, what did they do on 2nd A rights?

          (*crickets*)

          Precisely nothing. As always. We are on the same page concerning the Republican Party.

        3. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Republicans are waiting for a big voter turnout. They keep saying it and no one seems to hear it. Their hands are tied, even when they had all 3 houses they could do nothing because Romney, et al.

          Get out and vote and vote republican across the board and watch the landscape change. If you don’t, you lose

          I am not a partisan hack, I just value my rights and understand we have to give them the firepower to accomplish what we want.

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          They were also burdened by McCain, who would rather screw us to spite Trump instead of repealing Obamacare.

  10. avatar 24and7 says:

    Maybe all gun owners should riot..it works for these HATE groups in getting attention…Because depending on the system and the constitution is a waste of time…Besides the government has proven that they have no way to enforce a mask gun ban or gun prohibition…They can’t even control a small minority of criminals burning towns and looting..

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “…depending on the Constitution is a waste of time…”

      Get out of here with your anti-USA nonsense. Go find your buddies in the Antifa, BLM, or AOC/Omar fan clubs. POTG, Oathkeepers, 3%ers, and patriots are fighting for a restoration of our rights and rule of constitutional law, and don’t need anarchist elements like you spouting the enemy’s garbage. Go cash your Soros paycheck and tell your buddy Vlad to tap you out of the ring and give you a meal break.

      1. avatar 24and7 says:

        who are you taking too!!..the supreme court is a joke and so are you..the cert denials mean those cases are Permanent law…go back to sleep..i am an oath keeper..KMA!

        1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          Nothing is permanent law. It just takes another similar case. The Supreme court has even reversed over 200 of it’s own previous rulings. Not saying this isn’t a setback, but it’s not necessarily a permanent one.

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @Klaus
          That’s how they keep stringing us along. Many thousands of dollars spent on these law suits that deserve their day in court stolen by SCOTUS in a instant. Then we say: Better luck next time.”

          Where does it stop? When is enough enough? This in sickening. The sad part is SCOTUS knows what’s right, they just refuse to acknowledge it because it isn’t politically favored at the DC parties so they might not be invited anymore.

  11. avatar Country Boy says:

    Looks like Roberts turns out to be a traitor to the 2nd A. Did the Dems pay him off? Or have the Dems threatened him and his family (it’s SOP for dems)

  12. avatar S R says:

    Well that’s just peachy. I’m not sure how many people (on the right and the left) realize that government officials (politicians and bureaucrat hacks) can do whatever they want regardless of what the laws or courts say. Theoretically they have to follow the rules, in practice they interpret the laws, court decisions, and policies however they want.

  13. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Isn’t the really big problem the fact that lower court judges will not follow the rule of law set by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and other Amendments? This is much like the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State. The courts do not use ‘Stare Justice’ or the original intent and wording to make decisions.

    Most of these rulings should never go to the Supreme Court to start with. We do need to elect a strong 2A supporter to be President, and right now that looks like Trump. The good news is he’s not a politician, the bad news is he likes to make deals. So far though, he’s tried to do what he said he would. Out with Pelosi and the Squad and Dem, Liberal or Republican that is anti-2A.

  14. avatar d says:

    The Obamination Care vote was the beginning of the end of Roberts. I think he was threatened or someone has something on him. Either way he is toast

    1. avatar S R says:

      Why is he toast? He has job security for the rest of his life. Although he can be impeached there will never, never be enough democrats or republicans to remove him.

      1. avatar d says:

        I meant that he is toast to us. Useless

    2. avatar Xanthin3232 says:

      I’ll agree there. He crafted an argument that Obamacare wasn’t a tax (allowing the supreme court jurisdiction to rule on the case), and then ruled that the government had the authority to implement it under the taxing powers of the federal government. None of the other 9 justices agreed with him, but it was the 5th vote for keeping Obamacare. It was such a nutty thing to do that I honestly believe he’s got a skeleton in his closet that is being held over his head. Obviously that’s just a guess and I have no evidence based reason to believe that. It just makes more logical sense than some of his rulings do.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “None of the other 9 justices agreed with him”

        Now we have 10 justices, another victory by Trump!

        1. avatar Xanthin3232 says:

          Heh, if only. “Besides him, none of the 9 stood by that reasoning.” Or just swap out 8 for 9 as is. Forgive the mistype.

      2. avatar Alex says:

        Why would it matter what they have on him? He has a life term. Unless he was eating baby’s in his basement or something he would never be impeached. He is just weak on or never cared about 2A in the first place.

        1. avatar Xanthin3232 says:

          Well, they can be impeached still. Not to mention ostracized from society. Or if it is something illegal, he could be put in prison like anyone else.

  15. avatar strych9 says:

    Look at the history of the court since ~1850 I’ve often wondered what the outcome would be of having all the Chief Justices in a room, getting them all hammered and hearing their unvarnished opinions on a few key topics.

    The court having as much power to create and destroy things, while at the same time having little to no power to prevent repercussions of having done the creating or destroying, or even to steer the outcomes a bit must put a pressure on the court’s members that’s nearly unimaginable.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      With Roberts, I suspect his reluctance on 2A issues may be that he is trying to protect something that he values more. I don’t know what that is but that is because I am ignorant in the ways of the SCOTUS. I am not trying to excuse Roberts in the slightest but rather just imagining that he has a house of cards of some sort that he is trying to protect. He strikes me as the the type that would actually try to play 4D chess rather than say what he really means.

      1. avatar Xanthin3232 says:

        I’ve heard that before, that he is trying to “save the supreme court” and protect it as an institution by keeping anything too controversial from being dictated. If he holds that view, is not an unreasonable argument, and I can respect that the legislative process is a better place to drive changes. But one of the functions of the courts is to protect the rights of the citizens, so when he makes decisions that allow rights to be trampled with a “well, that’s what the people want” attitude, I would find that detestable.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          There’s the old saying that “discretion is the better part of valor”. However, there are also the sayings “moderation in all things” and “the poison is in the dose”.

          If one is zealously discrete then probably had a tendency to fail to act when one should.

          The flip that the court pulled in 1942 suggests to me that FDR’s “court packing scheme” essentially cowed the court from that point forward.

    2. avatar Umm . . . says:

      Strych9,
      The problem is the exact converse. Your statement would have made much more sense as “The court having as much power to create and destroy things, while at the same time having little to no RESPONSIBILITY or ACCOUNTABILITY to prevent repercussions . . .”

      When lawyers – the professorial type who already believe they’re smarter than everyone else – receive power to make their personal whims the Supreme Law of the Land AND have zero real possibility of individual consequences, the only surprising part is that ANYONE in that position manages to show a semblance of conscience or restraint.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        An interesting theory that has very little real-world evidence to support it, in fact you provide significant counter evidence in your own argument.

        I’d wager that it’s highly likely that this theory is simply an unwitting attempt at confirming a preexisting bias.

        1. avatar Umm . . . says:

          Strych9,
          If you’re crediting me with originating “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” I suppose I’m flattered. Now, about that “very little real-world evidence” bit:

          FACT: Nothing in the plain text of the Constitution assigns judges any responsibility whatsoever for the outcomes of their opinions. As regards accountability:

          FACT: Like everyone in government, SC justices are essentially immune to the pressure of market forces.

          FACT: Unlike the large majority of government employees, SC justices are not under the pressure of accountability to higher officials.

          FACT: Unlike officials at a comparable level of the government, SC justices are not under the pressure of accountability to the electorate.

          FACT: SC justices are THEORETICALLY under the pressure of impeachability, but in real life that doesn’t happen to anyone, ever, for any reason (one attempt; acquitted in 1805!).

          Part One Conclusion: SC justices are under less external pressure than any private or public sector employee, or even welfare recipient – even the latter have been called to account a time or two since 1805!

          Now, if you think I “provide[d] counter evidence” by admitting there are a few who may not have been corrupted absolutely, I’d counter that:

          A. The existence of all government (including courts themselves!), lawyers, contracts, gun rights and ALL codified rights and laws, is predicated on the fundamental assumption that instances of individual consciences remaining pure in the absence of all accountability are historically infinitesimal, never to be relied upon on in the absence of external checks and balances, and

          B. Numerous justices who persisted in doing what they thought was right in the absence of external pressures actually did what was “Left”, i.e. “interpreted” the Constitution (to which they’d sworn an oath) into the opposite of what it actually says, inventing “constitutional” principles which would have nauseated any signer of the actual document, because it’s an obstacle to their “higher” duty to turn the US into just another eurocratic social-democracy.

  16. avatar Northeast Attorney says:

    The practical ramifications of this decision is undeniable: States hostile to the Second Amendment – New York, New Jersey, California, et. al. – will interpret today’s cert. denials as a green light to pass laws restricting Second Amendment rights further than they already have. I’m talking about mandatory long gun registries. Sure, many people won’t comply, but such laws would be enforced and upheld, leaving non-compliant gun owners to limit the exercise of their rights even further. This is what they want: You to live in the shadow of their “laws.” We are in big trouble, folks.

    I wish the answer were different, but today is a tragedy for Constitutional rights. Donald Trump last week Tweeted that he has protected the Second Amendment – where and how? If he doesn’t get a handle on this and come forward with some meaningful support for the Second Amendment, his loss this November is all but guaranteed.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us suffer.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “Donald Trump last week Tweeted that he has protected the Second Amendment – where and how?”

      Did you miss the dissent where Kavanaugh joined Thomas? The two Trump court pics were willing to grant Cert..

      Do you seriously believe there would have even been a vote for Cert. had Hillary made the court pics? How do you think a potential Kagan 2 or Sotomayor 2 would have treated the 2A?

  17. avatar Dude says:

    Gorsuch seems to be okay with legislating from the bench.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-for-gay-rights-in-the-workplace-11592230310

    “The high court, in a 6-3 decision, said the broad language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, should be read to cover sexual orientation as well. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts in addition to the four more liberal members of the court.”

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

    “A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee. Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.”

    Most employers don’t care about anyone’s sexual orientation. What you do on your own time is your business. However, sexual orientation, and especially your made up gender (which could change at any moment), is NOT the same as your sex.

    An employee that decides to become transgender could definitely have an impact on a business. The employee’s appearance has an impact on interactions with customers. A transgender could become a distraction, and have a negative impact on a business. Depending on the size of your business, separate bathrooms could become an issue. This could possibly have an impact on group health insurance.

    How are companies now legally allowed to discriminate against smokers? They seem to be doing that these days.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Smoking directly endangers those around you with increased risk of lung cancer, emphysema and COPD.

      Your rights end at the tip of my nose, but when you’re smoking you are polluting the very air others breathe.

      On the other hand, what somebody has in their pants and what they do with it is their own business.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “Smoking directly endangers those around you…”

        This is an irrelevant point. Smoking is already banned in businesses in most states. Furthermore, you can have a separate, designated outdoor smoking area, or you can tell the smoker to leave and smoke on their own time.

        “On the other hand, what somebody has in their pants and what they do with it is their own business.”

        Agreed as long as it doesn’t have a negative impact on the business.

  18. avatar Dave says:

    No one should be surprised by this. It might be for the best anyway. Roberts is a liberal.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      A classical liberal would be a good thing. He is seems to be a progressive or a neocon like his nominator.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      I wonder if he just wants to be portrayed as a hero by the media, similar to McCain. I now wonder the same thing about Gorsuch.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “I wonder if he just wants to be portrayed as a hero by the media, similar to McCain.”

        Contrary to what Donald Trump says, John McCain is a hero, he doesn’t need the media to declare it so.

        I disagreed with many of John McCain’s policies, he was a pretty solid Republican.

        But I would never question his heroism, the record is clear in that regard, he is a great American in anyone’s book.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “he is a great American in anyone’s book.”

          Warmongers aren’t great in my book. You would be singing a different tune if that man had become President.

        2. avatar DL says:

          McCain was deeply corrupt. He got a huge personal profit in the keating five scandal. He was also a war monger.

        3. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          “Contrary to what Donald Trump says, John McCain is a hero, he doesn’t need the media to declare it so.”

          Keating 5 member, 2 negligent crashes of his own planes, did propaganda broadcasts for the North Vietnamese, cheerleader and then hobbler of our soldiers for every unnecessary war since the 1990s, cheerleader of Syrian Islamic terrorists….

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          Killing Obamacare repeal because he hated Trump….

          Being captured didn’t make him a hero, but staying a POW instead of letting the VC have a propaganda coup by playing the Daddy card did. However, being a hero doesn’t mean you have good policy views. Jason Crow, CO-6, is a Bronze Star recipient from the 75th Rangers, but he’s also a gun grabbing Dem.

  19. avatar Dirk Ri says:

    FFS, Die already Ginsburg.

  20. avatar Chichi Montezuma says:

    LMAO if you’re hoping a black robe will restore your freedoms you’re up shhht creek between a rock and jackboot without a paddle.
    I wonder if the California amnesty law being upheld lends any credibility to laws like the ones in Kansas regarding non-enforcement of federal gun laws.

  21. avatar Xanthin3232 says:

    This is very disappointing, especially for those of us in states like VA that are rapidly adopting as much gun as the blues can get away with. They even attacked VA’s preemption laws, so now local crazies can pass even worse restrictions that they couldn’t (yet) get on the state level.

    A small silver lining is that the 4 SC justices that are extremely ANTI 2A could have granted cert too, but still feared losing a 5-4 decision… It’s frustrating that we thought we were in a better position than we apparently are right now. I hope that one more justice will solidly tip the scales to freedom. Love him, hate him, hold your nose or whatever, but DO vote for the guy who actually appointed two pro-2A supreme court justices so far.

  22. avatar Jaque says:

    The entire judicial system is corrupt. It is corrupt because of its inconsistent interpetation of the law, specifically the 2nd Amendment.

    There is no other codified “right” where one must undergo background checks, pay a fee to excercise, requires a license, varies from state to state, and can be denied because of ones “perceived “ mental health. None

    Only the 2nd Amendment is held hostage , which is not an individual right, but a restraint upon government.

    And so why are 2nd Amendment cases so difficult to be understood ? It should be very simple to decide. The government has no authority to deny Americans the rights to bear arms. Thats it. Simple.

    Yet it takes decades and millions of dollars to challange the government’s restrictions and denials of an individuals right to bear arms. And that is for one case.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Agreed. Irrespective of the politics or individual decisions, the Supreme Court as a governing body has lost all legitimacy. It’s truly remarkable that they somehow managed to find constitutional rights to both abortion and gay marriage (neither of which is even alluded to in any of the founding documents or Federalist Papers) and yet the absolute and clear language of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” has been repeatedly found for generations to mean literally the exact opposite

  23. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Muh Prezident gonna fix it real soon! Vote Republican

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Okay, looks like the President is not coming to save the day. Republicans talk a good deal, but they seldom act in our right’s defense. What is your proposition? Democrats, who promised to gut the 2A if given a chance? Is there a third alternative? Do tell!

  24. avatar Darkman says:

    Been saying all along the “Courts” were/are against the 2nd A. The power provided to the “Citizenry” by the 2nd A is considered a threat to people who rule over their ” Subjects” by caveat. The sole authority of the 2nd A is based on the Citizenry’s willingness to use it in times of Tyranny. When the Citizenry fear the consequences of fighting for their Freedoms/Rights…More than they fear the loss of their Freedoms/Rights. The become Subjects and Tyranny prevails. Even if you don’t agree with their cause. At least the BLM movement is willing to act for what they believe in. Instead of pissing and whining behind a keyboard. Arm Up Carry On.

  25. avatar Ironhead says:

    Bunch of fucking cowards. End of story.

  26. avatar Ark says:

    Roberts is now an outright enemy of the 2A and is threatening to side with the libs if any case is granted cert.

  27. avatar JeremyS says:

    I’ll be confident in the Court if we replace 2 more libs. Breyer and RBG. That could take a while, even if Trump wins.

  28. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Relax[?], RBG will be gone soon and Trump can nominate a black woman for the SCOTUS, perhaps before November; but Amy Barrett would be the best choice if the blacks weren’t rioting in the streets. Britt Grant, 40ish, a Georgia supreme court justice, would also be good. Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, well known to the Wisconsin legal community, another good possibility…

    Biden says he’ll put a black woman on Supreme Court. A leading Biden candidate, Justice Leondra Kruger, was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown to the California Supreme Court. But a woman, a black woman, is THE ‘political’ go to option right now. And abortion case defeat hangs in the balance for dems along with 2A rights, as another reason why any Trump nominee to replace RBG probably has to be female.

    Trump said last time around, ”The freedoms we cherish and the constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy. The responsibility is greater than ever to protect and uphold these freedoms, and I will appoint justices who, like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard for the Constitution.”

    If Biden wins and his black woman VP, might even be Oprah Winfrey, soon takes over all is lost.

    1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      @Grim

      What is an “Oprah”?
      I sincerely hope Biden chooses Oprah! What a farce that would be. Clearly anyone voting would have to stop and say: “Can she lead this country if something happens to Joe?” Answer: “Not only no but hell no!”

  29. avatar DerryM says:

    I’ll just see if I can touch-off a bit of debate here:
    I am wondering if the reason Roberts is unpredictable on Second Amendment Rights Cases is that he fears a definitive ruling either way by SCOTUS will ignite a fierce battle in the Courts (both legal and public opinion) about States’ Rights.
    In my opinion, the States enacting the most severe infringements on the Second Amendment get away with doing so by claiming ambiguous wording in both the Second and Tenth Amendments permit said States to “regulate” Second Amendment Rights as they want.
    In the case of the Second Amendment: these States see the first half, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” as an ambiguity made more so by the The Militia Act of 1903 {and subsequent Amendments and additional Laws}. Most notably the establishment of The National Guard in each State and designation of the “Unorganized Militia” {everyone else not formally enlisted in the Military or National Guard} are used as an argument for “gun control” laws.
    In the case of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The potential to interpret what “powers” those might be is very broad and IMHO invites impromptu power grabs by State Governments in reaction to immediate “public concerns”, or to advance a political agenda.
    Hence, I wonder if Justice Roberts fears unintended and unanticipated consequences extending beyond the Second Amendment to the Tenth Amendment, if SCOTUS makes a definitive Ruling either for or against the meaning of the Second Amendment.
    I am not defending, or condemning Roberts, so, before too many of you get your undies in a wad, get that straight. I am just wondering what his reluctance to make a definitive decision might possibly be.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “I am just wondering what his reluctance to make a definitive decision might possibly be.”

      ‘Occam’s Razor’, they had something on him…

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      IMHO, it’s a “protect the court” move.

      The Left has made it quite clear that if they win “enlarging” the court is squarely on the table and what they mean by that is “add a bunch of judges so that we have an overwhelming majority for the next 40 years, one which will rubber stamp anything we do”. Which is part of how the NRP ran Mexico with an unbroken line of Presidents from 1934 to 1994.

      That would essentially defeat the purpose of the court and make any victories today into pyrrhic ones in rather short order.

      “Survive to fight another day” seems to be the unofficial motto of the court since ~ late 1941.

      The notion that the court is immune to political pressure/considerations has always been far fetched. The notion that it would be immune since the 1930’s is a bad joke. But it’s still a commonly held belief.

  30. avatar P-Dog says:

    Ok, so where do we go from here?

    I’m working on 2 assumptions: #1 Trump gets re-elected, #2 within the next 4 years, RGB (and/or another justice) retires.

    Working on those two premises, is it possible to have them re-hear a case that they denied cert? Barring that, does this mean we start from step zero, that a new case needs to be brought up somewhere, then appealed to a circuit court, then appealed again to the SC? Because that can take years.

    I’m not lawyer, so I’m genuinely curious.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “Working on those two premises, is it possible to have them re-hear a case that they denied cert?”

      YES. Denying Cert. is not ruling on the merits one way or the other, it’s simply a ‘punt’, things stay the same…

      1. avatar Northeast Attorney says:

        “YES. Denying Cert. is not ruling on the merits one way or the other, it’s simply a ‘punt’, things stay the same”

        Except things don’t stay the same. Denial of certiorari leaves the Circuit Court of Appeals decision in place, and the body of case law in the lower courts, binding on people like you and me, evolves from there.

    2. avatar Northeast Attorney says:

      “Ok, so where do we go from here?”

      Good question. The most realistic answer is that the major gun-rights groups will have to contact the President and ask him to support a pro-2A executive order that will be challenged, forcing the Courts back into the position of considering the 2A issue.

      Trump cannot be let off the hook on this issue. He was elected by gun owners to do one thing and, so far, he has not delivered.

      “I’m working on 2 assumptions: #1 Trump gets re-elected, #2 within the next 4 years, RGB (and/or another justice) retires.”

      That’s a major if-come. The outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election is by no means certain, and most gun owners are rightfully uncomfortable with the prospect of their rights hanging on the outcome of a single, unpredictable election. This is where we were four years ago, except we’re actually worse-off now legally than we were before Trump took office.

      1. avatar DL says:

        Firstly it is clear you are not an attorney.

        And Trump has not come through? Have you seen the opinions of his federal bench appointments. That is not just scotus but appeals and district.
        No president in modern history has been more supportive on 2A and more so on practical affect than Trump.

      2. avatar TommyJay says:

        “… contact the President and ask him to support a pro-2A executive order that will be challenged …”

        Exactly what type of executive order would you like to see? I’m sincerely interested, especially from a member of a bar. It wouldn’t hurt if many of us 2A supporters were on the same page.

      3. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        “The most realistic answer is that the major gun-rights groups will have to contact the President and ask him to support a pro-2A executive order that will be challenged, forcing the Courts back into the position of considering the 2A issue.”

        With Roberts proving to not be a reliable conservative vote, that move doesn’t seem like a good idea…

    3. avatar LKB says:

      Yup, another case would have to start from scratch — once the mandate issues on these lawsuits, they are kaput.

      There are ways to push a test case through the system fairly quickly, but Roberts’ apparent spinectomy means nothing favorable for the 2A is likely going to happen for years. About the best we can hope for is that the bump stock case in NDTx goes well and that the Fifth Circuit then affirms it . . .

  31. avatar 2aguy says:

    Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…..sitting out the election because you don’t like the Republican candidates or Trump, is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment……..that is the truth, the fact and the realit………And this is why you need to march out and vote for Trump, and vote for every spineless. weak, rino republican in the Senate……Trump has the chance to replace the two left wing Justices and to give Justice Thomas a chance to retire and be replaced by another real Justice….This only happens if Trump wins with a republican majority in the Senate…..if he loses the senate, he can’t appoint anyone, and the democrats will not let any new judges be appointed. So, you don’t like his tweets……so what, vote for him. You don’t like him as a human being, so what, vote for him. Your republican senator is a rino, lick spittle….so what, vote for them……time to cowboy up, time to put on the big boy pants…..numbers matter, and we need a majority in the Senate to replace ginsburg with a new Justice…if we don’t the democrat will, they will then take these cases and gut the 2nd Amendment. If you want the Supreme Court to protect the 2nd Amendment, you have to elect Trump and the Republicans.

    1. avatar Umm . . . says:

      B-but, sometimes 5% of RINOs side with the 95+% of Dems who ALWAYS vote for gun control, and it’s THEIR fault the law passes, and you’re WRONG because false moral equivalence!

      1. avatar DL says:

        OK so you are just in denial of reality. On EVERY issue there are some outliers.
        And it is not 95% /5% it is 99.5% 0.5%.
        In just the past ten years there are hundred of thousands of data points: cosponsorship, subcommittee votes, committee votes, amendment votes and full votes in the 100 state and federal legislative houses, and the thousands of city councils and the data show 2A is the single most partisan issue.

        1. avatar Umm . . . says:

          I was being completely sarcastic, and couldn’t agree with you more.

          I thought the fact that I cited “false moral equivalence” as the “justification” for my sarcastic statement meant that I didn’t need to use “/sarc”, but I guess I was wrong!

    2. avatar Peter Gunn says:

      You can vote pro-2A without voting Rep or Dem…

      https://joj2020.com/

      1. avatar 2aguy says:

        No, you can’t. Democrats at all levels will end the 2nd Amendment, they are not even hiding it anymore.

      2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        This is, in fact, a democrat attempt to steal votes from Trump. Has no chance of winning. Open your eyes…

      3. avatar Umm . . . says:

        Peter Gunn,
        How is that any different from the “sitting out the election” option 2aguy posted?

        There are times in life when proving a point may outweigh consideration of pragmatic consequences. A SECRET ballot no one will ever know you cast is not one of them. No one will even look at the third-party decimal dust, much less draw important lessons on the nobility of your little stand.

        I say this not because I am perfect, but because I was a stupid 18y/o a$$hole whose write-in vote for GEN Schwartzkopf (to protest Bush I’s broken promises) helped elect Clinton. Sure showed them, huh?

        1. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          Having options for people to vote for is what matters- the more options, the better. One can vote party line, one can vote “lesser of evils”, one can vote write-in, one can vote “protest”, one can choose not to vote… it’s all up to the individual voter. But having a system appearing to be “rigged” to limit choice in order to maintain the status quo of primacy is abhorrent.

          As I have said before, I only vote for the person I actually want to have the job- without reservation. I will not vote for “the next best thing” when presented with options I find unacceptable. That is my right. I respect others’ right to vote for whomever they wish to. I recommend that everyone exercise due diligence and educate themselves as much as possible, but an individual’s choice is THEIR choice- I would never presume to “know better” about someone else’s personal choice. In my experience- the people that have the biggest issue with other people’s choices is always when that choice is different from their own.

          There is no situation where everyone will get what they want. While you are on this earth there is only one person you will ever be able to control- yourself. One can gnash their teeth and bemoan until the cows come home- but it will always be to no avail. All you need to do is master your own thoughts, words, and deeds- that’s all anyone can ever authoritatively maintain.

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Well Pete, a fool and his vote are soon wasted and you certainly have the right to play the fool. We all understand your point of view and wish that circumstance permitted us to vote our conscience but alas, that is not the case. The best we can do now is vote for the person who most represents our position AND has a chance of winning. Any other vote is a vote against that person and is simply wasted.

          I hate using all caps but I really thought the “and” needed emphasis.

        3. avatar Umm . . . says:

          I respect Peter Gunn’s rights and opinions, but I completely agree with anonymous4goodreason. We have one party whose platform is the Founders’ vision of Constitutional, individual rights predicated on absolute individual responsibility, and another that completely, bitterly, and OPENLY opposes everything about that vision.

          Yes, even the former fall short of their principles, being not only flawed, fallible human beings, but also politicians! Even more importantly, they need to seek election in a dumbocracy where perfect fidelity to personal responsibility is a non-starter to a huge percentage of voters. We won’t have true republican candidates unless we restore a true republican electorate, and that ain’t going to happen. So, I’ll continue to vote against the party that consistently stands against the Constitution, Western Civilization, merit, achievement, etc.

  32. avatar TFred says:

    “We are thus back to the same situation we faced when Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote. That means nothing is likely going to get be granted review because of the fear that Roberts would, as is becoming his custom, chicken out and vote to gut Heller and MacDonald. The pro-2A minority has made the calculation that it’s better to deny cert to these cases than to risk a decision that could adversely affect gun rights.”

    Yes, but, here’s the part that doesn’t make sense:

    Since it only takes 4 to accept a case, and we know there are 4 solid gun-haters, if Roberts is all that wonky, then why wouldn’t the 4 gun-haters take one of these cases, relying on Roberts join them in setting a generations-long anti-gun precedent? Surely the 4 haters know that Trump has at least a decent shot at reelection, and if any of them don’t last the remaining 4 years, they lose their game.

    1. “why wouldn’t the 4 gun-haters take one of these cases, relying on Roberts join them in setting a generations-long anti-gun precedent?”

      Because they can’t rely on him either. They can’t predict what he’ll do. Remember, he sided with the majority in both Heller and McDonald. They don’t know how he will rule any more than the pro-gun 4 do.

      Both sides have calculated that the status quo is better than risking a ruling that goes against their side.

      1. avatar TFred says:

        Makes sense. So yet once again, we face the “most important election of our lifetime” this November. ::sigh::

      2. avatar DL says:

        That status quo has changed with this denial though Dan.
        States that are barely blue or newly blue that were worried about court challenge to AR-15 bans, mag bans, changing from shall to may issue will now go for them.

  33. avatar Prndll says:

    There is a chance America might not win by voting Republican but there is absolutely no chance at all by voting Democrat.

    Guns and the 2nd Amendment have been hotly debated since the beginning. It is that debate the reason the 2nd Amendment was created in the first place. It is the result of it. We are seeing the current iteration if the argument. The insanity of the left and their governmental power can take these things away. WE must fight to keep the American dream alive. That fight does not necessarily mean ‘in court’. Although that is an important part of it.

    One should always remember that there are still more guns in the hands of civilians and citizens than anything else in this country and that number is growing. What has been taking place in the last several months is incredible. Concerning for sure but awesome none the less.

  34. avatar Billy Bob says:

    He hasn’t gone wobbly, he’s bent. Remember when on a family vacation ” bad guys ” broke in ? Message sent and received. Shortly afterwards he cast the deciding vote bringing in Obama care. Come on folks. It wasnt that long ago. A lot of you have the memory of a goldfish.

  35. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Biden wins, god help us, oh god no, black woman VP, most likely Obama’s gal, Kamala Harris, soon takes over, and nominates the RBG replacement to the SCOTUS …

    Then…, at a minimum:

    Assault weapons ban along with background checks for private and online gun sales and high-capacity, over ten rounds but they may reduce it to six or eight rounds, magazines banned.

    Buyback programs – plus perhaps as much as $100 million annually toward ‘gun safety research’.

    Ammunition tax along with quantity purchasing limits and a tracing methodology.

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/10/07/475538/bullet-control/

    Require all gun owners to acquire a license through the federal government. Currently, 16 states have similar laws to varying degrees.

    Financial institutions to deny services to all gun and ammunition manufacturers that produce or sell assault weapons – if assault weapons are not totally banned.

    Banks and credit card companies to stop processing weapons sales and firearm transactions without a background check.
    ______________

    Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., pledged to act on gun control within her first 100 days through executive action if elected. This was before she dropped out of the race.

  36. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    Well, today turned out lousy.

    Here’s a nugget to brighten a gloomy day :

    “Deer runs into Black Lives Matter marchers in NJ, injuring 3, 1 seriously”

    “Authorities say a woman marching in a Black Lives Matter protest in New Jersey was seriously injured and two others were also hurt when a deer suddenly ran into the crowd.”

    https://www.fox13news.com/news/deer-runs-into-black-lives-matter-marchers-in-nj-injuring-3-1-seriously

  37. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Until Leftist CJ Roberts is removed/replaced there will be no reclaiming of 2 nd.amendment rights, he is the weakest link to a originalist based court in the meantime look for all Constitutional rights of We The People to suffer

  38. avatar Shiffrod says:

    These cert denials are going to wreak havoc in VA. There isn’t anything left for the Democrats in VA to fear. Once Trump loses the executive branch and the Senate it’s going to be off to the races. I guess I have to rush some purchases before the end of the year.

    1. avatar DL says:

      I live in Virginia and before the elections the number of morons saying Dem and Republican candidates “are the same” was amazing. this despite a mountain of objective evidence, that they are diametric on this issue.

      Moreover the Dems will now be in control for redistricting, and if they get one or two more seats in gen assembly they will ban and ban and ban, and convert shall issue to may issue.

      There are LOTS of blue states now where Bloomberg holds the strings and which will now start incrementally moving to bans.

  39. avatar Jen Farmer says:

    I wont advocate breaking the law. But in theory, this is the point at which “ameristan” a mythical country, begins to see people willfully rolling around with fully automatic guns, and people in the juries of Ameristan jury nullifying.

    Or perhaps, in this theoretical Ameristan, People all choose to procure a mythical P.A. Luty device, and march as a group of 100,000 down D.C. and stand in front of the white house, peacefully, but with illegal material, and suggest that they will not give up these devices willingly, and they will have to all be arrested.

    I mean, there are far more peaceable ways to Civil Disobedience, which as has been said recently and in the past by supreme court justices to be a legitimate thing, than to riot and burn down businesses.

    I wonder how much of a guide Ameristan is?

  40. avatar Thomas Sonder says:

    Sorry, but I’d rather get a negative opinion at this point than a deny because “The 4 conservatives don’t want to risk a bad precedent.” How much worse can it be? As currently “interpreted,” the 2nd Amendment is dead. Reversing Heller would not have any practical difference over the rational basis scrutiny being employed now. If Roberts is going to reverse it, make him say so publicly.

    1. avatar DL says:

      How much worse can it be? <As currently “interpreted,” the 2nd Amendment is dead. Reversing Heller would not have any practical difference over the rational basis scrutiny being employed now.

      What an uniformed post. How much worse could it be? Heller could be reduced or reversed (and will be if the Dems get one more seat) in which case all handguns (yes revolvers too) and all semi auto rifles and shotguns could be banned in many jurisdictions.

      1. avatar FB says:

        Im believe this will happen now.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        The Heller decision was meant to give the government power to restrict guns and their use. That’s exactly what they are doing right now and they refuse to make a good decision to replace it. They did what they planned to do and they are continuing as planned.

        You’re just scared they will officially say you have no human rights because they said so. Right now you feel at ease because it’s not clear to you. Once they admit you are their slave you have to do something about it or live like the slave you currently are. You don’t want any boogaloo, you are comfortable with your current life.

  41. avatar jp says:

    Absolutely fucking disgusted…

  42. avatar FB says:

    An actual constitution amendment ignored. As far as Im concerned, they are all red coats. Sounds like a good time to do a grand scale march of our own to protest.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      The Democrats are already taking up all the space. You are going to have to wait until after the election or you have to join in with your fellow countrymen.

  43. avatar Phillip says:

    Looks like we may need to start our own movement. ACFC (Armed Citizens for the Constitution) and march to Washington fully armed! It’s time we took our country back. If these leftist movements can progress without intervention then so can we.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Antifa plays within the rules to the extent necessary. They know how the game works.

      Those right wingers that try to play their own game get shot dead by the government. Look at the man open carrying during a protest in Las Vegas that was murdered by the police for carrying guns. And the three right wingers that were arrested for terrorism at the same protest.

      Look how Trump behaved and treated Americans who were peacefully protesting outside the White House. Imagine if they were armed instead of being a bunch of hippies.

  44. avatar FB says:

    People, be prepared for the worst. This is the beginning of the end.
    Your elected officials cant do squat anymore. The last nail hit the coffin to our constitutional rights. There is no hope for SCOTUS and now this gave the red coats the pass to chip away on the 2nd amendment.

  45. avatar Ralph says:

    “Chief Justice Roberts has gone wobbly.”

    No, he’s gone full leftard. He finally understands that the G is all about uncontrolled power and he’s drunk with it.

    It’s happened before on SCOTUS. See Harry Blackmun. After all, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, suitable for Roberts and his ilk wiping their asses with it.

    You choose — a paper Constitution that means what some greedy left wing [email protected]@rd says it means, or a gun that means business. I know I’m leaning toward the latter, and I’m a lawyer.

  46. avatar JimmyCrackCorn says:

    Few times in American history can we point to one moment that could have changed everything.

    Ft. Sumptner, G. Washington refusing to be King, PearHarbor, 9/11 all come to mind.

    We will look back to this day as the day our 2nd Civil War might have been prevented but for the COWARDICE of one man, named Chief Justice Roberts, the man who gave America to the forces of chaos.

  47. avatar DL says:

    I expect first to fall as a result will be DC’s shall issue.

  48. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    The Supreme Court has been especially cowardly this term. They are not our saviors.

  49. avatar D. says:

    Roberts the Traitor strikes again. Chief Justice my a__!

  50. avatar Dave says:

    Unbelievable. I never imagined this level of cowardice.

  51. avatar JOLJ says:

    If you do not like this. You need to not only vote, but tell all your friends & pro gun buddies to vote.
    We could get two more SCJ in the next 4years, so vote.

  52. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “The only reason I case see for the Court’s reluctance to take another Second Amendment case is that they now fear – or know – that Chief Justice Roberts has gone wobbly.” Gone wobbly? No, Roberts has been wobbly since at least his thinking on Obamacare, declaring it was a tax. And then, declaring that even though the law quite explicitly said only those buying insurance through STATE run marketplaces, not federal, could be eligible for subsidies, that the law didn’t really mean that.

  53. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I don’t rely on the courts. Historically black people never could. I don’t say that to be mean. It’s just a recognition of history. Your best chance of keeping your civil rights is living in a conservative constitutional carry state. Vermont is liberal. You see what happened here???

  54. avatar neiowa says:

    Well Roberts and Gorsuch HAVE been really busy inventing new rights for degenerate freaks. No time for the constitution.

  55. avatar IMPEACH THE 5 Anti American Justices and all like them on Capitol Hill! says:

    IMPEACH THE 5 Anti American Justices and all like them on Capitol Hill!

  56. avatar EA says:

    Kavanaugh is not very solid pro 2A. He only agreed with Thomas on Part 1 of the dissent. He didn’t agree concur with Part II of the dissent which talked about public carry. He also didn’t side with the 3 solid pro 2A justices on the NY case. Kavanaugh is not reliable for 2A cases.

  57. avatar Alan says:

    And so it turns out or appears that a majority of The U.S. Supreme Court are a disgrace to the constitution,and to what I assume was the oath of office that they all took. Might they have had their fingers crossed during the oath taking? One wonders.

  58. avatar Chiefton says:

    When Roberts agreed with the liberal justices to allow the government to block religious services, the conservative justices realized that the Bill of Rights was in total jeopardy at the SCOTUS. That means that it will be up to the people to protect those rights on their own by whatever means our forefathers would deem appropriate.

  59. avatar B. Zerker says:

    In Roberts’ case, Y’all know that ALL judges can be removed from the bench – even SCOTUS Justices! Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly dictates that: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,…”. Therefore logically, for “bad” behavior they can be removed. I’d say that NOT performing the job that you were hired to do (enforcing the Constitution), just because there might be some political heat and instead, looking out for your own back-side instead of the people’s, isn’t very “good behaviour”. When DJT is reelected, maybe his removal from the bench should be looked into.

    1. avatar Minigun says:

      Good idea, and they would have to remove the other 4 libs for the same reason! I like it!

      Most important election for 2A rights in a long time! Many find Trump objectionable, but if you want any hope of retaining your rights, then vote for Trump – the Ds have already said they are taking our guns! I believe them.

      1. avatar B. Zerker says:

        If they come for our arms, they do so at their own peril. Besides, who are they gonna get to do it? The majority of LEOs, federal and state, are sworn 2A supporters. The U.S. military is prohibited from following unconstitutional orders, Posse Comitatus forbids it. Are they gonna contract out for U.N. mercenaries? Allowing foreign troops on U.S. soil (an invasion) would do wonders for them at election time. Or, maybe they’ll get their newfound allies ANTIFA to go knocking door to door to confiscate our arms? (That would get bloody real quick.) Or maybe they’ll try to strip 2A from the Constitution? Good luck getting 3/4 of the states to ratify that. Anything they do to disarm us is unconstitutional including passing “colorable” statutes. Other than the Dems accomplishing a coup d’etat that suspends or abolishes the U.S. Constitution, they haven’t a prayer. People have to learn the Constitution, which is a binding contract in writing, that limits government and call them on every encroachment of it. When said government exceeds those limits, we have remedy (Title 18, Sec. 242) and recourse (Title 42, Sec. 1983).

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          @Zerker

          Wow, I wish I had your blindness or naivete! Haven’t you paid any attention to what’s going on at all? They don’t directly take stuff, they just ban it then pass laws that if you use it for self defense or any other lawful purpose you go to prison. So you can hide in your safe and never use it but what good is it then? The idea is to kill the culture, not take everything all at once.

        2. avatar B. Zerker says:

          Yes, I’m well aware of what the legislatures and courts in this republic are/have been unlawfully doing with colorable legislation. No rose-colored glasses here. Our problem is that the majority of the people are either lazy or ignorant as to what their actual rights are.

          Lesson 1) No civilized form of law can exist without the elements of “remedy” and “recourse” if one knows where to find them (the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Code and relevant Stare Decisis), he/she may be inconvenienced by all of those colorable statutes you eluded to, but they can all be proven unconstitutional in an honest court of law (which might be hard to find until you get to the appeals level). But if you can prove that you have a constitutional right to something (remedy), and that the government’s willful encroachment has denied you the ability to freely exercise that right, a court proceeds at its own peril to gain a conviction because it then opens the doors to both criminal prosecutions of the Judge and Prosecutor (Title 18, Sec. 242) and suits of equity against them/their bonding Co. for your recourse (Title 42, Sec. 1983).

          Word of advice: never use a lawyer if you want to win. People have to learn to do this on their own (Pro se) because anyone/everyone who’s passed the B.A.R. (not even an American institution) is NOT on your side (re: Copus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sec. 4, at any law library). This’s why the court always wins with those of whom that are illiterate regarding the law. Educate yourself. Find a right in the Constitution, any right, and have the court explain why that right doesn’t pertain to you. When every American starts doing this, we’ll be a freer people (what the Framers had envisioned) because of it.

          And if you don’t like what I’ve stated in this reply, just keep living your life under their thumb – no skin of my ass.

        3. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Yeah, good luck. Let me know how it works out for you. When the highest appeals court tells you that you don’t have a right because “Public Safety” then tell me how good your theory works for you. Also, Pro Se cases start out at a deficit because the court is already prejudiced against you. In their eyes, you are showing a lack of respect for their profession.

        4. avatar B. Zerker says:

          The SCOTUS has ruled that ‘The state has no affirmative duty to protect the citizenry from the actions of bad actors’ (Deshaney v. Winnebago County), so how can it now claim to have an interest in “public safety”? All lies to make us think that the government cares. All they care about is exercising power over us and extorting our money. We’re getting pretty damned close to what birthed this republic. All it’ll take is for them to come after out arms like the Brits did at Concord…

          In any court, we’re already starting at a deficit. It’s obvious that they don’t respect us, so I’ll give them the respect that they deserve. That’s not to say I’ll be rude. I’ve been told by someone who knows that if you have countercharges and countersuits filled out explaining how your rights have been breached, ready to file when you show up for a trial and present them to the Judge, it helps to get misdemeanor charges dismissed. It shows them you’re not kidding. Remember, if ANYONE deprives you of a right that is secured by the U.S. Constitution, that’s a federal felony.

        5. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          In that case they were denying a service (police protection) to an individual. That’s a non-sequitur for what we’re discussing and, in fact, denied that police protection is a right. Look instead to the recent 1st amendment ruling that restricting religious freedoms is no different than limiting theater capacity when such restrictions are in the interest of public safety. The “public safety trumps individual rights” mantra has been adopted by the courts. It is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent but, no matter, they know there is nothing we can do about it.

          You have no idea how badly I would like to see you prevail in a 2A case and prove me wrong. I simply cannot, given the current makeup of the courts, see that happening regardless of the method chosen to present the case.

        6. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “hide it in your safe”…

  60. avatar Sano Togoogle says:

    Homosexuals and transvestites now can’t be fired based on some .. what..

    However the Second amendment which needs no interpretation, it’s as clear as the First, can be ignored trampled on and citizens thrown in jail for transgressing some obscure and un-Constitutional “law” that is clearly un-Constitutional.
    ROBERTS HAS BEEN BLACKMAILED INTO SUBMISSION.

  61. avatar JB says:

    At his point we’re all walking up the down escalator. Looks like a lot of motion and work being done but zero actual movement is happening. AND when you stop for a second to catch your breath, you lose ground.

  62. avatar kbhret says:

    We need 7 Clarence Thomas’s.
    In light of what the democrats did to him during his confirmation hearings you NEVER have to worry about Justice Thomas. He’s as solid as they come. He will NEVER wobble.
    I respect him as a jurist, and more importantly, as a true American and human being.

  63. avatar RM says:

    Presently, the Supreme Court IS part of the deep state. Unfortunately, Justice Roberts is a disappointment. Until Justice Ginsburg circles the drain, expect nothing new. When Pres. Trump is reelected, expect more out of the WH rather than the SCOTUS….

  64. avatar David Redmond says:

    I think that the time has come for us to begin exercising our 2nd Amendment right for the purpose that the founding fathers intended. I think it has something to do with that section of the oath we took every time we were promoted in the military that says: “Defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC”.
    Tench Coxe said: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”.
    Frederick Douglas said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.”
    Of course, I’m not telling you to do anything. Let your conscience be your guide.

  65. avatar Alan says:

    There are two (2) ways to describe the action of a majority of The Court in the above matter. One is COWARDLY.The other is DESPICABLE..

  66. avatar Minigun says:

    Is Ruth still alive? How do we know? Is she on life support? Trump has at least 4 more months to replace her. Mitch and the Senate can do it in one day, AND SHOULD, as payback for the D antics over Kavanaugh, the impeachment hoax, Russia hoax, etc.

    TRUMP! MAGA 2020!

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