Supreme Court equal justice under law
Previous Post
Next Post

From the NSSF . . .

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry trade association, rejects the legal gymnastics the 7-4 en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit employed to rule the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms outside the home.

The court’s ruling in Young v Hawaii ignores the clear and simple language of the Second Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court precedent of the landmark 2008 Heller decision and 2010 McDonald decision, which displayed the exact opposite findings.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling underscores the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept firearm-related cases for review to settle the long-standing disputes. Lower courts are repeatedly failing to apply Supreme Court precedents and are, in fact, treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right, as alleged by Justice Clarence Thomas.

“The blatant defiance of the Supreme Court to undermine Heller and hollow out rights afforded to individuals by their Creator and clearly protected by the Constitution is unconscionable,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “It is with amazing boldness that the Ninth Circuit brazenly sets aside not just the previous findings of the Supreme Court, which legally they are bound to apply, but actively chooses to ignore plain English and refuses to acknowledge the right to bear arms. We look forward to filing an amicus brief when this heads to the Supreme Court.”

Four sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices have previously expressed frustration with lower courts’ refusal to faithfully apply judicial precedent and frustration with the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up gun-related cases for review. Just last year, 10 cases were pending before the court and all were denied certiorari, or review.

Since, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been seated on the bench and was a stalwart defender of Second Amendment rights during her confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Justice Barrett testified that Heller affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms and if state laws were passed to the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court would be bound to review challenges to those laws.


About NSSF
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I do find this to be rather curious. Roberts, after all, was appointed by Bush Jr. back in 2005 as a conservative intent, as we all know, but once he inherited the Court as Chief Justice a few years ago, he went full left tilt. Now I’m not so sure about ACB, either.

      One has to wonder if some entity (insert your favorite Illuminati-esque org here) compiles life-destroying dirt on new appointees to key judicial positions, or in the event of a clean record such as ACB, simply mails an envelope full of photos showing their loved ones going to church, or dropping off Sally or Timmy to elementary school, or some such. Just an implied threat of harm if certain court rulings (*cough Mafia cough*) don’t go their way.

      Remember…nearly everything that was pooh-poohed in the past as being tin-foil hattish eventually proved to be true. Big Data tracking our emails and online activity…check. Facial recognition en masse by private stores and proliferating to the point where we’re living in a Minority Report style world…check. Sheeple opting in for surveillance a la Brave New World in trade for convenience…check. The science of two chromosomal genders being touted as “non science” by our own government and people being forced to comply…check.

      Up is down, left is right, Democrat is Republican, good is evil, black is white, 2+2=5.

      • Drink in the always relevant and concise wisdom of the incomparable ‘I Haz A Question’ .

        As it was, is and ever shall be.

        All Hail.

      • I Haz a Question,

        One has to wonder if some entity … simply mails an envelope full of photos showing their loved ones … or some such.

        We now live in a world where:

        1) Anyone can travel anywhere easily, quickly, and inexpensively.

        2) Anyone can communicate with anyone, anywhere, easily, quickly, and inexpensively.

        3) There are tens of thousands (if not substantially more) ultra-mega-wealthy people/corporations in the world.

        4) Just 3 or 4 people in the U.S. alone have a combined worth over half a TRILLION dollars.

        Any of those thousands of ultra-mega-wealthy people or corporations could hire the best-of-the-best-of-the-best assassins in the world to eliminate anyone for a price/budget that doesn’t even represent a rounding error on their balance sheets. (And the price/budget would be even lower if the assassin doesn’t actually have to murder the target but merely convince the target of the absolute capability.)

        At this point I am thoroughly convinced that some person or corporation has done exactly that to every key government position. Why wouldn’t they? Who could possibly stop them?

        • ^ Last paragraph.

          I have thought this since the election. CLEARLY human life is not an issue here, only power. And if it an unfortunate accident happens, and everyone suspects, OR even if there is actual proof….what can be done about it? “They” have private armies and can fly anywhere. Pay rent to (fill in the blank country) and bob’s yer uncle.

          F you prole.

          Meanwhile their employees (our “Gov’t”) is paying “them” (with our money, such as it is) to search their DBs literally for US. We had a bad *thought* and thus WE need to be arrested.

          Hmmm (say the AI), looks like this guy bought some CLP in 2015. Bought some old bowling pins from ebay in 2018.

          KNOCK KNOCK

      • Probably a conspiracy theory but I read that the families of several justices were threatened.

      • Yeah. It’s more than a bit spooky.
        Even my local Albertsons has a camera at 5’ off the ground at the exit.
        I make a point of wearing a baseball hat and looking down. But how many other cameras have already tracked?

        • I guess we could all wholeheartedly embrace the universal wearing of the biggest face masks possible. You know, because COVID…

    • This court-hopping is like bar-hopping. All you get out of it is a pounding headache There comes a point when you have to live your own life and waiting on azzhats in black robes to exercise common sense is not living. If they had a lick of common sense they’d look at the case and rule that it is Gun Control and Gun Control reeks of racism and genocide and us Homies in Black Robes don’t play dat sht.

  1. Who pray tell not abridging our Right to Bear Arms can mean not being able to carry outside of my home?
    Bear means to carry about on one’s person. It’s that simple

  2. When the Framers wrote that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, they apparently didn’t mean that a citizen could actually carry a gun. Because “bearing” has nothing to do with “possessing,” apparently.

    On the other hand, the right of a mother to kill her unborn baby and the right of gays to be married are enshrined in the Constitution exactly nowhere, yet they are both invulnerable to the type of evisceration that the Second Amendment has undergone for decades.

    Isn’t it strange how some fake constitutional rights seem to be get more respectful treatment than some real ones that are actually spelled out in the Constitution? I wonder why.

    • It’s not strange at all. The 2A enshrines the right of the people to possess the means to revolt; and this is something the ruling class can’t abide. The 2A is a threat to their power over us. I don’t think the vast majority of ordinary people realize how deeply the ruling class despises them and doesn’t trust them.

    • The Court did not find a constitutional right to same sex marriages. What it concluded was that every citizen is entitled to due process and equal treatment under the law, as established by the 14th Amendment. Because marriage certificates are issued by governmental entities, and since state laws extensively regulate every aspect of the marital relationship, from beginning to end (and after, through probate), the states were constitutionally required to grant to gay marriages the same status as traditional marriages. Religion and religious beliefs has nothing to do with the question presented.

      • A marriage is between a man and a woman. Any man and any woman. Whether or not they consider themselves gay or not is not a concern for the government. And never has been.

  3. SCOTUS overturned Bush V. Gore to install Biden…………….Yeah.

    Why should we trust ’em on this case?

  4. The simple fact that we need a panel of Lawyers in Black Dresses to protect and define our Constitutional Rights in sickening.

    Any Citizen with a 5th Grade education can read and understand the Bill of Rights. Yet these Ivy League Assholes can not and travel back in time to the middle ages to find that it is O.K. to Ban the carry of arms now, because another Tyrant did it in the past. If that’s not enough for you, since Hawaii has spit on people’s rights for a 100 years, that makes it O.K. to continue to do so today, because the slaves are accustomed to these illegal restrictions.

    I’m going to stop typing now, before I say other things.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson

    • I just about accidentally chopped my finger off with a hatchet today.
      How much blood do you need.
      I really watered the ground with it, and I was close to a tree. Is a Pecan a liberty tree?

    • It’s a really big animal that looks kinda like a raccoon with no tail.
      Perhaps they would have understood ” The right to possum arms shall not be Infringed “

      • That’s sarcasm, it seems “they” read however they want , “Shall Not Be Infringed ” . Means ??. It means they’re not honoring the oath they took to protect the Constitution. That means they Lied to get a job, if I lied to get a job, and then ran the loader off the loading dock I’d get fired.

  5. I know of no Supreme court justice who has become conservative. Almost all conservative “grow’ in the office and chance their stripes. We are not playing the same game as the other sides. We don’t even have the same rules. As I learned when I worked for the Federal Governments, laws and facts are only used when needed. When facts of the law refute what they want, they ignore them. After all, government does not have to live with the consequences of their decisions, we do. When bad things happen, the elites in government jump into the crisis they created and tell us that their new solution is the only hope. There is always some crisis demanding new government rules to fix the old problem, with little thought to the future.

    • Play by the enemies’ rules, lose by the enemies’ rules. Time to play by the rules in that old piece of paper…..”We The People…” Our Founding Fathers would already have been finished shooting a second time. Politicians have accomplished what armies could not. America has been over run from within.

  6. For a decade I have been criticizing the lawsuits that limited the scope of their challenge to handguns, in particular, the concealed carry of handguns or permits that would allow one to carry a handgun concealed.

    One of the reasons I have given is that there is a long history, both in the United States and in England, to prohibitions on not just concealed carry but to the possession and carrying of concealable weapons.

    As I pointed out in the oral argument to my appeal, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom, et al., some states treated handguns that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed as dangerous and unusual weapons, and that my lawsuit is not limited to handguns, I seek to openly carry long guns as well.

    Moreover, California law prevents those of us who live in incorporated cities from carrying any loaded firearm, and any modern unloaded firearm, in the curtilage of our homes and on our private residential property.

    The Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion limited the scope of its opinion to “small arms capable of being concealed.”

    I have mentioned in the past that Young could lose and I could still win for the reasons I gave above and in my lawsuit. Now we will have to wait for a decision in my appeal to see whether or not there is a Second Amendment right, or a substantive due process right independent of the Second Amendment to openly carry a loaded firearm or a modern unloaded firearm outside the interior of our home.

    If there is a right then I win because the government is not allowed to ban a right simply because the law also bans something which is not a right.

    Quoting from the Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion:

    “The contours of the government’s power to regulate arms in the public square is at least this: the government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places—including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets—the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly. We need go no further than this, because the Hawai‘i firearms licensing scheme Young challenges only applies to “a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor.”” Young v. Hawaii en banc Slip Opinion page 97.

    This en banc decision in Young v. Hawaii has created an intractable split with the 7th circuit court of appeals and the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals. It has also created a split with every Federal Circuit Court of Appeals because those circuits have either held or assumed that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside of our homes. The majority of the judges in this 7-4 decision has held that there is no right to the carrying of concealable weapons, regardless of whether or not they are carried openly or concealed, outside of our home.

    The Young v. Hawaii en banc decision means that the Flanagan v. Becerra appeal loses, and loses even if one were to construe it as a “carry” lawsuit because the NRA/CRPA’s Flanagan lawsuit is limited to concealable firearms, handguns. And nowhere in the record will you find that the Flanagan plaintiffs claim that they were prohibited under California law from carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm in the curtilage of their home or on their private residential property.

    Mr. Young’s attorneys have said that they are going to file a cert petition. I hope that they file a petition for a Full Court rehearing. Even if the petition is denied, it will give all of the active judges on the 9th circuit court of appeals to write a dissent to the denial of the Full Court rehearing.

  7. For over 40 years, I’ve deeply believed and still believe that Article III of the Constitution is a FFU (Founder F**k Up). Article III set the stage for Judicial Appointments to be “Political Plums.” Handed out at the whim of Presidents and Governors, and requiring only tactic approval of the Upper House or the State’s Legislature, and for 234 years, that’s all it has been for the most part. It’s nothing more than the repayment of political favors, that places an individual on the bench. You’ll never convince me otherwise, and cases like this prove my point.

Comments are closed.