Supreme Court equal justice under law
Bigstock

The United States Supreme Court announced today that it will not review three cases challenging lifetime bans on gun ownership by people who have committed nonviolent offenses, some as long as four decades ago.

From USA Today:

In one of the cases before the court, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in 2005 challenged the ban on purchasing or owning a gun. In another, a Pennsylvania woman who pleaded guilty to making a false statement on her tax returns sued over the ban. In a third, a man who pleaded guilty to counterfeiting and smuggling cassettes in the 1980s challenged the firearms ban.  

This continues the high court’s recent streak of dodging gun rights cases.

The decisions Monday, which were handed down without explanation, are the latest in a series of instances in which the Supreme Court has skirted Second Amendment questions. The high court last issued major guns rights rulings in 2008 and 2010, cases that struck down handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia and Chicago.

But the court has signaled in recent years that it is interested in revisiting the issue. Four conservative justices have expressed a desire to address outstanding Second Amendment questions in recent dissents. Four justices are required to take a case, but five are needed to write a majority opinion on any issue.

Some are speculating that at least some of the Justices are being influenced in these decisions by Democrats’ threats to pack the Court with four new members to “restore balance” after President Trump appointed three new Justices during his four-year term in office.

The thinking is that the Court doesn’t want to feed the court-packing frenzy by taking and ruling on cases involving such hot button issues as Second Amendment rights, abortion, or the 2020 election…but we couldn’t possibly comment on the validity of that theory.

 

63 COMMENTS

  1. What good is a Supreme Court if they don’t uphold the Constitution they swore to protect ?
    There is no need for this court if their NOT doing their job…
    I think this country is turning 3rd world like, faster than any REAL American ever thought it would.

    • “What good is a Supreme Court if they don’t uphold the Constitution they swore to protect ?”

      For one thing, it proves that government is nothing more that hypocrisy piled on top of dishonesty.

      • If a coach agreed to play a ball game using umps or refs supplied and paid by the opposing team, you’d call him what he obviously was — stupid.

        Yet, this is the same rules we citizens all “agree” to when we go up against the government, and we celebrate it as part of our glorious American freedom.

    • “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

      And not hearing these citizens cases is certainly an injustice to them.

  2. Maybe Republican senators should “threaten” SCOTUS with a letter and then they would rule since both sides are upset with them.

  3. The Supreme Court seems to follow the standard republican governing model of “we mostly won’t directly take away your rights, or maybe just a bit.” Not going to rock the boat, not going to legislate from the bench, not going to expand anything, let’s just keep the status quo, if your rights were already limited, let’s just keep them that way!

    • “…if your rights were already limited, let’s just keep them that way!”

      It’s called, “history, tradition, precedent”.
      (SC Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.)

      BTW – The SC is apolitical: “We do hot have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” Chief Justice Roberts.

        • Considering election fraud received a cowardly pass it was expected. To do nothing only condones the denial of restoring rights to certain individuals based on trivial incidents that happened in their early life. Like being denied rights over the trivial matter of being born Black in the era of Jim Crow, etc…Hey you are Black and we won’t hear your case or Hey you’ve got a tiny black spot on your portfolio so you need not apply. Defund the USSC:)

        • “Considering election fraud received a cowardly pass it was expected.“

          You folks are always good for an early morning belly laugh, the New York City ConMan is still smirking at how easy y’all are to fool.

  4. So terrorism is a respected and viable means of enacting change after all.

    If I’ve learned anything over the past year it’s that to get what I want I needn’t waste time making my case, talking with others, writing petitions or my legislators. The proper, popular, respected and normal course of action is to threaten violence and do violence until I get what I want. I always knew all that “cowardly acts by cowardly actors” bullshit when it came to terrorists was just that. Bullshit.

    • Yep. But it only works if you are an official member or “ally” (read Antifa) of an “oppressed” group or class that has corporate and political backing. Otherwise you are a terrorist/insurrectionist/white supremacist to .gov and the intellectuals at CNN.

    • No comment I can possibly make about this would do nothing but put on a government list.

      I guess my only answer to this is, “Shocked, SHOCKED!, next thing you’ll tell me gambling at Ricks!”

    • Ask a Christian and a Muslim bakery to “bake your cake.” Compare and contrast the results.

      Our politicians no longer respect those who follow the process, because they have neutered the process. All they respect anymore is force and violence. Then they kneel and kiss your feet.

      I don’t advocate this type of government, but I’d be a moron not to recognize one.

  5. The problem with so many people is they look at the justices as gods. It’s time that you start to defy your “God”. Don’t do what “God” tells you do.

    In fact you need to use nullification and nullify what god has told you is the law. People need to look into the history of nullification in this country. And start electing folks like Sheriff’s willing to support Nullification.

    The question is. How many people have the courage to defy what the gods tell them to do from Mount Olympus???

    BTW
    Historically Supreme Court rulings were ignored by politicians. And entire States for quite some time in this country. But sadly that changed.

    • Yep. Ignore unconstitutional “laws” and regs. Jefferson and others of his group said as much, and they should know!

  6. Soooooo, we’re just not going to mention that Texas “Republicans” sided with our Beloved Pigs in Blue over the smelly peasants on constitutional carry?

    (Texas “Republicans” are only good for letting you freeze to death)

  7. The court realizes, it is not always the solution.

    There is a political process, and sometimes that is where the solution lies.

    • Circumstances like this are the whole reason we have a court. If they dodge stuff like this we really dont need a Supreme Court.

      • You expect the court to decide which felony convictions are suitable for life time bans??!

        Then what? Every time a new felony statute is created, they step in and make a determination?

        • Libertarians Liberals and the Left were big advocates for paroling criminals including first-degree convicted murderers. But when the bush Administration ran the Willie Horton ad. It destroyed the Democrat Michael Dukakis Run for the presidency. And since then no one has been interested in changing the laws to make it easier on convicted felons. Violent or the non-violent type. Except for President Trump. Who was interested in changing the laws to give some people a second chance.

          And it was Kim Kardashian who had the courage to go and ask President Trump to pardon convicted nonviolent felons.

        • “since then no one has been interested in changing the laws to make it easier on convicted felons”

          Tell it to all the felons who have had their voting rights restored by Democrat pressure groups, who are still working on the states that haven’t done this yet.

        • Several years ago several gun rights groups pointed out that the Democrats, that were working to get voting rights back for convicted felons. They Specifically avoided working to get the gun rights back for those same convicted felons.

          Show me your links to prove the democrats are working to return gun rights to convicted felons.

    • And a useless solution a political solution is. Most politicians are nothing but dishonest low life scumbags. Don’t ever expect them to do the right thing. Most violate their constitutional oath on a daily basis.

      “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      -John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, October 11th, 1798.

      • we need to bombard the court with 2nd amendment cases…they can’t ignore them all without making their judgement suspect

  8. These people committed FELONIES!

    There are a lot more people who lost their guns due to MISDEMEANOR domestic violence BS charges. Let’s start with getting gun rights back to guys who slapped their wives.

    • A felony is a crime that is punished with over 1 year in jail for 1 offense. If it is not bad enough to keep, feed and clothe you for 366 days, it should never be called a felony. A plea bargain and felony should require that the perp does the time.
      Making someone a second class citizen is a BIG deal and there needs to be a real reason.

    • “Let’s start with getting gun rights back to guys who slapped their wives.“

      That’s right, the little woman had it coming for her mouth, right?

      I mean, she drove you to it, you know what I mean.

      And oh yeah, I think you have the perfect temperament to be armed with lethal weapons.

  9. There’s always a reason why they can’t do something, always a master strategy where a loss is really a victory.

  10. A Democratic threat to pack the Supreme Court with its puppets is a very real danger. FDR used it when the Court looked like it would rule against some of his programs. The only real counter is a threat by Republicans to expand the Court even further the next time they gain power. The Democrats remind me of the Blues Brothers’ “mission from God” except that, with the Democrats, it’s not a comedy.

  11. Maybe Congress, you know… the people that write/make law, should do something about it instead of relying on SCOTUS to “interpret” the current laws.

  12. So, if SCOTUS does not take a case because they have been bullied/threatened into rejecting, it is that called:

    A. Corruption
    B. Political side-taking
    C. Cowardice
    D. Dereliction of Duty

  13. The original “switch in time that saved nine” was the Court’s reversal of its own trajectory in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). Incidentally, the Chief Justice at the time was another quisling named Roberts.

    This betrayal is more likely to be “the switch in time that saved none.”

  14. “The thinking is that the Court doesn’t want to feed the court-packing frenzy by taking and ruling on cases involving such hot button issues as Second Amendment rights…”

    Well, that would seem to be the 1942 precedent.

  15. One DUI is not a felony.
    Cheating on taxes is cheating the Government, thieves get really pissed when they get ripped off.
    Bootlegging cassette tapes?? OMG , but its always said the Hammer of Thor will come down hard on tapes and recordings.
    Why didn’t these people get their day in court with the Supreme Court? Gunms, I want to exercise a constitutional right.
    Bwhahaha the civilian thinks it has rights.

    • I dunno about other states but I know from watching a friend go through it that in Colorado you can, in fact, get a felony DUI, on the first try even, if you 1) get an aggravated DUI and 2) have other “aggravating factors” involved.

      • It’s all B S anyway, after ten years of
        no troubles a person should have all rights restored and a clean slate.
        Your sentence might be 1-2-5 years yet you are being punished for life.
        County fairs, State fairs, Science fairs, ain’t no No fairs

  16. I will say that maybe it’s part of a broader stance at this point. I mean lets not forget in 2020 they similarly refused to review cases around felons getting voting rights restored as well.

  17. The thinking is that the Court doesn’t want to feed the court-packing frenzy by taking and ruling on cases involving such hot button issues as Second Amendment rights, abortion, or the 2020 election …

    Well, if the current court refuses to provide righteous rulings on incredibly important fundamental disputes which just so happen to be in-line with the official Republican platform, the court might as well gain four additional justices who are Democrats and rule for the Democrat platform anyway. Because, from where I stand, the current U.S. Supreme Court is doing the bidding of the Democrats.

    The current court would serve us far better if they provided righteous rulings right now while they have the first Conservative majority in, what, 100 years? So what if Democrats want to add more justices. What are they going to do? Reverse all of the “hot button” decisions which the current court hands down? If Democrats want to go that route, so be it — that will prove unequivocally that Democrats ONLY care about getting their way and are willing to violate anything and anyone to get it.

  18. They wouldn’t take up the case if legislation Mandated the complete and total band of all private gun ownership and the full deployment of the United States military to go door to door with the intent to confiscate all guns by force and exterminate the entire population of United States found in a home with a gun.

  19. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Where is the government that as to us shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness?

  20. What is all this talk of Roberts? The denial of certiorari does not depend on him. Two others among Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas must also have voted against certiorari.

    • Certiorari,
      ah hah to get anything done in the Supreme Court I see you’ve got to speak Klingon.
      ignorance is no excuse for the law, but damn.

  21. “we need to bombard the court with 2nd amendment cases…they can’t ignore them all without making their judgement suspect.”

    “Suspect” according to who? The SC did exactly what they thought prudent as a measure to ward off expanding the court (diluting the power and influence of the current 9). What personal or political price do judges pay for not taking up a case?

    The justices of the SC do not understand that feeding the wolf only encourages more threats. Note that, so far, the Left is not proclaiming that the SC did a wondrous thing. The cancel culture cannot be appeased.

  22. If I had to guess, Roberts and Kavanaugh were squishy enough that the case wouldn’t have been a good gamble. Still disappointing as heck, though.

  23. It all starts at the top. When you steal a election, try to cover it up by making a totally Democratic structure people the USA is in trouble. Until this administration is challenged by the law abiding citizens to do better, they only know corruption…it is their way

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here