By Theresa Inacker
From the Supreme Court’s website:
Equal Justice Under Law, these words written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. … As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Guardian of the Constitution? Really?
After Monday’s colossal judicial fiasco in failing to act in any of ten Second Amendment cases, we have now been assured that the Court is not functioning as the guardian of the Constitution.
The Court has made clear that it is not the least bit interested in being the founding document’s guardian. It’s not even interested in resolving differing interpretations of the Constitution with major splits among the Circuit Courts when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
￼Instead of doing the hard work that it is tasked to do, the Court has decided to play in a popularity contest. While the Court grants only a small percentage of writs of certiorari (approximately 3%), Second Amendment challenges cry out for clarification and easily meet the criteria for the Court’s review. ￼￼
You must realize, We The People, ourselves, are the guardians of the Constitution and Republic.
In an impassioned dissent in the denial of cert for the New Jersey case Rogers v. Grewal, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Court should have granted the petition and heard the case.
“Whatever one may think￼ about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment cases, it is clearly time for us to resolve the issue.”
New Jersey gun owners were the force behind three of the ten pending Second Amendment cases, all challenging the state’s discriminatory “justifiable need” standard which operates as an effective ban on bearing arms.
The State of New Jersey has taken the dangerous position that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home, except under extraordinary circumstances. While a denial of a petition for certiorari is not a binding, substantive decision on the merits, it has the full effect of continuing, permitting, maybe even blessing the violation of our civil rights as we still cannot obtain permits to carry outside the home.
The Court’s dereliction here shines like a neon sign, announcing that unconstitutional infringements against gun owners will be tolerated, and maybe even encouraged. It also signals that if, or when a case is taken, the Court is currently inclined to decide that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home.
Every single gun owner in this country should be concerned with the posture of the current Court. ￼Do you carry a firearm every day? Do you have carry permits issued by your state? Does your state have constitutional carry? All of those positions should be seen as precarious at best￼.
You should be concerned that a majority of the Court doesn’t agree that the Second Amendment applies outside the home. ￼This means that your individual right is subject to the whims of mob rule, which is contrary to the concept of a Constitutional Republic.
Even non-gun owners should be concerned that the direct and plain words, “shall not be infringed” could somehow be interpreted any other way due to prevailing political influences. Wherever you may live, it may affect you, too one day.
If the Court will not acknowledge your right, who will? Today it’s New Jersey, but I assure you, this mob rule thinking against your individual civil rights spreads like a virus. There is no guardian. There is no firewall. ￼￼What We The People will do about it remains to be seen.
Theresa Inacker, an attorney and Second Amendment advocate, is a member of the US Supreme Court bar, the New Jersey delegate to The DC Project, and serves as the Communications Director for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners.