IMI Systems Quote of the Day: Our Spineless Supreme Court

“In fact, these onerous concealed carry laws, bans on ammunition types and other such legislation are a de facto disarming of the citizenry which is something our Founding Fathers, for very valid reasons, never envisioned.  The problem is that the gun control lobby will not stop at pushing those edges closer and closer to the core fundamental right where even non-lethal weapons like tasers and stun guns are already being banned . . .

“Unless Roberts gains some semblance of a spine and takes a case making a declarative statement in this area, the tyranny our Founders feared will become a reality.” – Commenter DAVENJ1 in The Second Amendment Comes Second For A Reason [via]

IMI-Israeli Ammo


  1. avatar ORCON says:

    Spinless politicians; but you repeat yourself, good sir.

  2. avatar Sammy^ says:

    Read “Operation Gladio” It’s all been corrupted, Everything, from Church to State.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      +1. He who has the gold makes the rules. Except that the modern gold is the monopoly right to manufacture currency out of nothing and charge interest for its usage.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        What “monopoly right to manufacture currency out of nothing” are you speaking of?

        The algorithms are all out there and open-source for all if you ever decided to ‘create’ “pg2Coin” for example.

        Or RF to create TTAGCoin if he desired.

        (I think “*snicker*Coin” has a nice sound to it… 🙂 )

        1. avatar Donnie says:


        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Perhaps he expected readers here to understand he was talking about creating “legal tender” for use in the US.

  3. avatar Weskyvet says:

    Long as the SCOTUS is picked by politicians, and politicians are picked by the people, and there are certain safe bets for “feel good look I did something” legislation that will woo voters to a particular candidate. You will see such things occur with alarming regularity. Why? Well because there is nothing a politician loves more than crafting some useless do nothing bill that will get him votes from his constituency come election time.

    With no term limits we have essentially created a ruling class in our Senate and House of Representatives. These folks can hang around for literally decades doing nothing, writing more freedom killing laws, spending all our money, giving themselves pay raises, and just generally screwing everyone over and there is nothing you can do to stop it so long as they keep winning elections. Congress shouldn’t be a career but here we are Congressional reps can stay long as they like (provided they win) and they aren’t subject to the laws and regulations they place on the people they govern.

  4. avatar barnbwt says:

    Nope, Roberts values the status quo and federal authority above the Constitution. “Conservative” in the worst sense of the word.

    Semper fidelis stare decisis.

    1. avatar Removed_californian says:

      If we’re always going to be faithful to the precedent then can we latch onto miller? I’d love me a mk18.

  5. avatar Jomo says:

    You are ALL wrong. Roberts simply recognizes that he has a squishy in the ranks. As long as the fifth vote he needs is unreliable and just as likely to vote for more
    restriction as to vote against, it’s suicidal to take a gun case to SCOTUS. Kennedy was very iffy on Heller. If you give that guy a second chance, he’s likely to cave in to the liberals.

    SCOTUS accepting a case that Kennedy decides against us doesn’t help our cause. We need to focus on ways to get a replacement in place while Trump is in the Whitehouse.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Jomo get it…

  6. avatar Cliff H says:

    Look, folks, SCOTUS is made up of 4 Conservatives, 4 commu…I mean Liberals, and one loose cannon nobody can count on.

    Roberts knows better than to take on any important 2A case until Trump has had a chance to nominate another true Conservative to the court. And the Liberal justices are well aware of this fact which is why they are hanging on to the bitter end in an attempt to prevent their place being taken over by a real Constitutional Conservative.

    The problem with SCOTUS that Roberts is struggling with is that once they have decided an issue it is a royal PITA to re-hear it and an almost impossibility to get the court to reverse a previous decision. Roberts does not want to take a chance that Kennedy will sink the 2A ship on anything important like Peruta or any other 2A issues and so keeps kicking that can down the road waiting for one of the Libs to die or get tired of showing up and just retire.

    This is not an unwillingness for the SCOTUS to hear these cases, it is a strategy to ensure that when they do hear the cases they will get the correct Constitutional result.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      No. The real problem is that we play these political games and wait with bated breath on what 9 people that we don’t know or care about has to say about real life and death potentialities.

      The whole idea is idiotic and stupid. So the joke is on “we the people” who continue to abide by and play this stupid game.

      Further these 9 people are in this true power position for life and are completely unelected and basically unaccountable. Sure there are ways to get a supreme court justice thrown off but go do the research and see how many times that’s been done and when the last time was…

  7. avatar million says:

    counting on John “Penaltax” Roberts? lol

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I do not characterize U.S. Supreme Court justices as spineless. Rather, I characterize U.S. Supreme Court justices as extreme idealogues.

    The unfortunate reality is that four of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are devout adherents to hard-core Communist/Progressive philosophy. The other unfortunate reality is that a fifth justice (Kennedy) cannot bring himself to fully support the Second Amendment. So, rather than set a precedent which reinforces unconstitutional firearm laws, the court keeps refusing to hear cases.

    What we really need is one more justice on the U.S. Supreme Court that fully supports our right to keep and bear arms. If that ever happens, I think the court will finally start taking Second Amendment cases. We can only hope that Kennedy or Ginsburg leaves the court in the next several months.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I’m pretty sure Ginsburg’s been dead for at least ten years now. But she keeps showing up in court, and nobody can tell the difference.

      1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        Ginsboig should be forced to recuse herself from EVERY case involving firearms or President Trump’s policies as her conduct and comments when on panel against both aforementioned topics/persons (after a “mock trial” of Sacco & Vanzetti if I remember correctly) broadcast on CSPAN this past Spring showed he has a clear bias.

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    “a de facto disarming of the citizenry which is something our Founding Fathers, for very valid reasons, never envisioned.”

    This is a thick and rich, too dense to parse, fart-storm of WRONG.

    Of course the founders envisioned it, it was one of the SPECIFIC reasons for the American Revolutionary War, and protections from it, and warnings of it, are enshrined in all of our founding documents.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      There was a post here a few days ago about there being a reason that the 2nd Amendment “comes second”. The reason is that, for U.S. Citizens to be secure in their 1st Amendment (and all other) rights, then they were THEN required to recite, and you ARE NOW REQUIRED TO ASSERT, this RTKABA.


  10. avatar Texas Gungal says:

    No one sitting on the highest court of the land can in and of themselves can submit an issue of constitutionality.
    Can only decide which case they will hear or not
    by returning it to the state or putting on their schedule . If you live in a Blue State that doesn’t respect your rights, if possible vote with your feet. If you can’t, then get to a Red State as soon as you can. Just don’t move to Texas bringing Hollywood gun values with you. If you intend to live in a small town or rural areas, please don’t call 911. If someone enters your property intending to do you or loved ones great harm.
    Be prepared to be your own first responder. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:


      DON’T VOTE WITH YOUR FEET, MAKE THEM MOVE (out of fear of life and limb).

      Saul IlInsky’s doctrine goes that you make the ‘thing’ onerous to the ones upholding Society, and make them displace, while retaining control/possession of the ‘thing’.

      You see this with:

      The U.S. Education ‘system’
      The Boy Scouts
      The President’s cabinet
      Washington D.C.
      The Northeast States of the U.S.
      Every U.S. “Commission” / “Department” / “Regulating Body”
      border towns in Texas
      legislative houses
      [currently] communist nations
      The United Nations
      The EU

      etc., etc., etc.


  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Three thoughts, here:

    – the entire constitution can be subverted through “the commerce clause”
    – the entire consititution can be subverted through application of “compelling government interest”
    – the constitution was designed as a check on federal power; not states

    Yes, the current SC is leaving to the states that which the constitution rightly retains to the states. Government always laterals to the states when it is convenient for the government. The federal government wants to ban personal firearms, but would require a constitutional amendment. The states have wide latitude to equip, organize and arm the militia. (i.e. a compelling interest). The application of the federal constitution to the states via the 14th amendment is a convenience for the central government, to be used as deemed fitting for the moment.

    The case presented by commenters that we nee to proceed with caution into a robust SC decision declaring near-absolute “gun rights” is something to take seriously. The left only needs to succeed once.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The Declaration of Independence cannot be circum-navigated or repealed (with regard to validity).

      The 2nd Paragraph is the fail safe. No “State’s” (in The United States), authority [nor the Federal government’s authority over any State or citizen(s)] passes back through (exists extraneously-to, or prior to) that pin-hole in our history, regardless of when that state was “founded”.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        In relation to “constitutional law” and protected rights, the DOI is irrelevant. Indeed, the entire constitution is irrelevant when courts decide so. The simple fact that the constitution permits amendments means “rights” that in an environment supported by “the rule of law”, all that is necessary it to change the law (constitution).

        While academically there are certain natural, human and civil rights that precede our constitution, in practice, only practice matters. Already your rights are circumscribed by the legal theory of “compelling government interest”, a phrase which I cannot find in any of the notes or writings of the founders. In addition, under the commerce clause any federal rule, regulation or law of the central government can be used against you. Next, under the commerce clause, if you own a business, you can be required to participate in the marketplace for your product/service, if you retain a portion of your products/services for the sole use of your family.

        Since I first read the commerce clause (in a ConLaw course that covered Heart of Atlanta Hotel/Resturant), it has amazed me that the anti-American crowd has not already seized upon the leverage afforded by the commerce clause. The theory of application of the commerce clause is that if one participates in any commerce that includes movement of goods or services beyond state boundaries (especially if you use any product in your production that has crossed state lines before you incorporated that item in your business, you are engaged in interstate commerce.

        We can scream and shout forever that our natural, human and civil rights are not subject to the political systems, and court reviews, all just pissing in the wind to be proud of our ability to regurgitate slogans. Simple, and inescapable fact is the we have only those rights we can personally defend. In any other circumstance, we may borrow such rights as the central government permits.

        Do not doubt that the federal courts are part of the government, thus part of the political system. Madison vs. Marbury effectively ended any notion of an objective and politically blind federal judiciary.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The case presented by commenters that we nee to proceed with caution into a robust SC decision declaring near-absolute “gun rights” is something to take seriously. The left only needs to succeed once.”


      This is the beauty of the 50-state-carry proposal I offered the other day.

      It’s simple –

      If you are not a prohibited person, you have a right to keep and bear arms.

      Bearing arms in public is conditional on meeting the training requirement of LE credentialed rank-and-file street cops in the state they reside, and this is the important part, *nothing* further.

      The beauty of that is, they can’t make the training requirement so difficult that they can’t staff their own departments, and lots of departments have a tough time staffing as it is. It’s a hell of good way to keep a boot on the neck of NYC and California…

      This idea isn’t perfect, but it could be the root of an idea on a way to get to 50 state reciprocal carry…

      1. avatar Arc says:

        Up until every cop gets “administratively passed” even when they fail. Just like the military. Doesn’t matter if you actually qualified on Table 3/4/5/etc, you are checked off as a pass. Doesn’t matter if you hit your target with a grenade, you get checked off as passing.

        Joe blow will be failed and will never get special treatment

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        Having any requirement (training or otherwise) is a prohibition to protecting yourself, and they have effectively disarmed you for your enemies [WHO SHOULD ALWAYS BE ASSUMED TO BE THE FORMER’S FRIENDS].

        Here’s what your ahole neighbors who needed a job need to do: their Fing job. Don’t invent a way to be further intrusive just to prevent you from preventing them from being further intrusive.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        There are a number of people writing here, who have very interesting and appealing ideas for legislation to make guns available to everyone in every state. As it is, every one of these intriguing ideas leads to the same unstable result – legislation.

        If an enumerated right enshrined in our constitution is insufficient to make the right gun possession near-absolute, how does legislation set the matter in denser stone?

        Every piece of legislation can be over-ridden by a 51% majority approving legislation that puts serious restrictions on gun owners, in every state. If we cannot defeat all gun control legislation in the 50 (57?) states with over-ridding legislation, what hope do we really have of preventing pro-gun rights legislation from being over-ridden later?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “..what hope do we really have of preventing pro-gun rights legislation from being over-ridden later?”

          For all practical purposes, *zero*.

          Once the Leftists have a hard lock on SCOTUS, their isn’t a damn thing stopping them from one day declaring the Heller decision overturned the same way Dred Scott was was overturned. (and immediately following, Australian gun control will likely follow.)

          And today, the Dred Scott decision being overruled is seen as a major victory for civil rights. And we know how the Leftists love their ‘civil rights’. (Well, the ones they like, anyway.)

          We are going to have to fight for the 2A for as long as the United States exists as it does today.

          The *only* way we keep the 2A is to keep public opinion on our side, as it is now.

          If we lose the culture war on gun rights, we will inevitably lose the 2A…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If we lose the culture war on gun rights, we will inevitably lose the 2A…”

          The education system is churning-out thousands upon thousands of anti-gun children. The situation today has its good moments for us, but the break-down on “gun rights” is near 50-50 (swings within margin of error). This is not what I call winning (admitedly, having only one more than the opposition is often accepted as a “win”).

          The Left is supremely organized (education control) in their drive to disarm the populace. We are left with scattered, uncoordinated, random groups and programs to “sell” our ideas of personal freedom, and personal responsibility. Right now, “we” outnumber “them” (think about how much damage “them” can do), but new generations are required to undergo education. The are not required to learn, know or understand.

  12. avatar Dedicated2ASupporter says:

    Republicans in Congress should have agreed to the debt ceiling hike to pass the emergency relief, but should have insisted on National Reciprocity as a condition – it even makes sense. As volunteers respond to emergencies, they should not be disarmed.

  13. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    If I were ever on a jury, I’d never convict someone that killed a politician that voted against the 2nd.

    Just saying.

  14. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Does that old fossil Ginsberg really think she can hold on for another three years?

    1. avatar TFred says:

      Yes. And unless you are an Olympic athlete or in the military, she’s probably in better shape than you are. Google it.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Hansel and Gretel need to get her in the oven at some point.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      We could spread a rumor that she’s interested in reviewing lawsuits related to The Clinton Foundation with regard to large sums of money paid to Bill Clinton for a speaking, concurrent with the illegal transfer of the U.S. Uranium holdings.

      She might fly into a mountain on an overseas military flight, shoot herself in a deserted park, get shot by a homeless person who ‘found’ a stolen gun by a park bench, get shot in the back fleeing a robbery where nothing was taken, disappear for a few years only to turn up newly dead in AR. . .

    4. avatar Joe R. says:

      We could spread a rumor that she’s interested in reviewing lawsuits related to The Clinton Foundation with regard to large sums of money paid to Bill Clinton for a speaking, concurrent with the illegal transfer of the U.S. Uranium holdings by Hillary Clinton, through the State Department.

      Then she might fly into a mountain on an overseas military flight, shoot herself in a deserted park, get shot by a homeless person who ‘found’ a stolen gun by a park bench, get shot in the back fleeing a robbery where nothing was taken, disappear for a few years only to turn up newly dead in AR. . .

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    “Every nation gets the government it deserves.”

    — Joseph de Maistre (1753 – 1821)

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      We are nowhere governed by robots, space-aliens, animals, plants, or ‘things’

      We all live on a rock in our Solar System, and any “government” found thereupon are strictly made up of the set of HUMANS called “MANKIND” (they are not a different species or ‘higher life form’). Mankind is only made up of your stupid neighbors who needed a job. They might be aholes, tyrants, prostitutes, and/or thieves.

      But they all eat, sh_t, and put their skivvies on one leg at a time, just like you.

      And they all sleep somewhere.

  16. avatar Court Watcher says:

    Roberts is not the problem, Kennedy is. Kennedy is the moderate, so until he retires or dies nothing will change, and you won’t see a mainline gun case get cert. The same of coarse is true if one of the liberal justices retires or dies. Keep watching the skies! It’s going to be an interesting 8 years with Trump.

  17. avatar stateisevil says:

    “Conservative” simply means they want to conserve tyranny. Roberts is a conservative in this sense of the word. The Kourt is not our friend and will never help us. Can one really buy a handgun now in DC post Heller? Yes..but not really.

  18. avatar Hunter427 says:

    Term limits must happen or there will be hell to pay. Career judges and politicians are kill our freedoms

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Term limits must happen…”

      Are we not all in favor the the first amendment? Are we not all in favor of preventing government from prohibiting free speech? Isn’t political speech specifically that which the first amendment protects? Is not voting political speech? Do we now favor restricting the rights of the populace to speak their political speech/opinion through voting for whomever they like, for however long they like? There is a formal constitutional amendment limiting the term of presidents. How did that work out for Reagan? Or Eisenhower? Or any other non-Leftist/Demoncrat?

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