The Supreme Court Confirms the Second Amendment Remains a Second Class Right

Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

[I]n several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a “justifiable need” or “good reason” for doing so. One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review.

This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way. …

Petitioner asks this Court to grant certiorari to determine whether New Jersey’s near-total prohibition on carrying a firearm in public violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms…This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. …

[In Heller] we explicitly rejected the invitation to evaluate Second Amendment challenges under an “interest-balancing inquiry, with the interests protected by the Second Amendment on one side and the governmental public-safety concerns on the other.” … But the application of the test adopted by the courts of appeals has devolved into just that. In fact, at least one scholar has contended that this interest-balancing approach has ultimately carried the day, as the lower courts systematically ignore the Court’s actual holding in Heller. …

With what other constitutional right would this Court allow such blatant defiance of its precedent? Whatever one may think about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges, it is clearly time for us to resolve the issue.

– Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the cert denial of Rogers v. Grewal

comments

  1. avatar Baldwin says:

    “…as the lower courts systematically ignore the Court’s actual holding in Heller.”

    Not just the “lower” courts.

  2. avatar nanotech says:

    It’s good to see that at least two of the Justices are actively engaging to support Second Amendment cases. That New Jersey case sounds like it could be quite pivotal.

    1. avatar Tim kiphart says:

      “Could have been pivotal.” All of these cases are dead dead. Yesterday was a cruel blow to the COTUS.

  3. avatar TommyGNR says:

    The problem is Roberts. He stopped being a conservative many years ago. We will need either him or one of the liberal justices replaced in order to restore the Constitution.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Well after a team effort it appears the last thing a cop will be doing in the future is placing his knee on neck of a man on the ground in cuffs.
      Until Gun Owners wipe the crybaby snot off their faces and cease squalking about the USSC and unite against a despicable agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide Gun Control will Continue.
      For today’s Americans who have to keep their guns hidden from thugs you are not the first to do so. Black Americans had to hide their skin color in the back of busses, restrarants and from town bigots. They also had to hide their guns if they were lucky enough to have a gun that would fire.
      For those who cannot sense the stench of racism in the Gun Control going on across America today it is time to get your head out of your behind and motivate yourself to stand against a demonic agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide.

      1. avatar Steve H. says:

        Two wrongs don’t make a right, Karen. I mean Debbie.

      2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “For those who cannot sense the stench of racism”

        Insulting your way to victory only works for Trump, it’s not a good look on liberal snowflakes

      3. avatar Cadeyrn says:

        So you agree that, at its’ core, gun control is racist and intended to keep certain categories of people helpless and unarmed?

        That’s a great start and something I think we all should be able to agree upon. Let’s do away with gun control and let every non-felon adult arm themselves to protect their rights. All of them.

      4. avatar Jeffery P says:

        Gun control is racist.

      5. avatar TheObtuse says:

        Stop your winning! It doesn’t make a difference and generally irritates the rest of the Squad!

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      When the country is the midst of a moral panic even Supreme Court justices turn into cowards.

    3. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

      Breyer and Ginsburg (i.e., the fossilized human remains on the court) must be replaced in Trump’s second term.

      Or, his third term.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    That is evident,until C J Roberts is removed or replaced with a originalist or RBG passes and is replaced by a originalist expect it to remain the same.

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

      “…until C J Roberts is removed or replaced…”

      C’mon, Great and Powerful Virus!

      Hear our Prayer and do your infectious thing!

      (Or an aneurysm, at this point, I’m not picky, I just want health-related results… 🙂 )

  5. avatar Hannibal says:

    To those who are optimistic: Thomas would not be writing these dissents using this language if this were some strategic play to wait for the perfect case.

    The court is not going to do anything on the 2nd Amendment, having taken its cue from the two other branches of government when they were not divided.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      Sad but true. 2 things Supreme court confirmed yesterday is that they are gutless and we are on our own. Kanvanaugh is a wimp, gorsuch and Roberts are turncoats. All equally worthless.

      A sad day for gun owner rights yesterday.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        You do not grant cert if you do not have have the votes. Roberts is the problem. If he were solid, the cases would have been heard. Because he’s not, they can’t be. We need one more pro-gun Justice before a case will make it before the Court.

        1. avatar Ironhead says:

          After the cowards rendered the new York case moot, Kavanaugh stated we need to get moving on other gun rights cases. Guess we just found out what the wimp meant.

  6. avatar Ron says:

    You know what’s funny?

    White Liberals scream about “anti racist” they are to high heaven… until you bring up Clarence Thomas…

    Then it’s all “Race Traitor” this and “Uncle Tom” that and all kinds of other words the Old Democratic Party would be proud of.

    Yeah. Real open minded and “anti racist” there lefties. You just can’t stand when any race wants to leave the democrat plantation.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      I’ve noticed that they do that with any black person that dares to think for themselves and not just do as they’re told. They do the same thing to gays and even women. Hillary and her henchwomen made many sexist, derogatory comments about women that didn’t vote for her. The zombies on the Left never seem to pick up on their own bigotry.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yeah. I’ve noticed the hate comments directed at Colion Noir.
        Personally, I like that guy. He seems to be a strong 2A supporter.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          that’s entirely possible.

      2. avatar 9x39 says:

        Willfully self-blinded to their own bigotry & racism. No greater form of hypocrisy exists than those who adamantly refuse to explore their own faults, all the while leveling the same charges at others with none, or much less than their own.

        Free your mind, and your ass will follow, as the saying went.

        Thomas ranks highly in the top 10 of my favorite individuals currently alive in this country. And Noir isn’t far behind. Frankly, I am fervently wishing Noir would throw his hat into the POTUS ring. I’d say the same of Thomas for Prez, though we most urgently need him exactly right where he is. Albeit Colion’s not well known enough outside of the PoTG enclave, I feel, to make a successful run just yet.

        1. avatar KenW says:

          How many knew who Barrack was before he made his run?

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          Unknown to me, although he had a distinct advantage of being the first (viable in the abstract?) U.S. presidential candidate who was not white. How important is that difference with regard to Noir running? I can’t predict, but I’d wager on it being of far lesser importance to many this time around.

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

          “How many knew who Barrack was before he made his run?”

          Outside of Chicago, nearly no one. That didn’t matter, he had that magical Kennedy-like charisma that he rode into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

          That’s election *Gold* for any political candidate that has it…

    2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      It was this very issue that broke me out of the Democratic tent. When tolerance democracy and freedom are all praised and preached only to be ignored if anyone dares to commit the sin of wrongthink it really stands out to anyone with even low levels of rational thought or integrity.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        If you abandon principles out of convenience, then you never had principles to begin with.

    3. avatar MouseGun says:

      YouTuber “Comics matter w/ ya boy Zach” uses the term “purse puppy”. These lefties don’t really care about black Americans, they just want a pet minority they can show off to their friends.

  7. avatar million says:

    Bush really screwed conservatives and his country with “Penaltax” Roberts.

  8. avatar Dude says:

    Don’t worry guys. Ultra “Constitutionalist” Neil Gorsuch has declared that the term biological sex, as written into law many decades ago, actually translates to also mean sexual orientation and whatever gender you feel like identifying as that day. Brilliant! He’s doing the heavy lifting for legislatures. They can’t be bothered to write complex laws like that, and why would they when they have Gorsuch and Roberts?

    So when will one of the open-minded liberals cross over and vote with the conservatives on upholding the Constitution? Any day now, I’m sure, just as soon as they take a break from legislating, Ginsburg has to pace herself…

    Most republicans are cool with it just because they are cool with that being the law. Okay, then why didn’t they vote to make this a law? Legislating from the bench is extremely dangerous, as Ted Cruz noted, “This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate,” he said. “Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.”

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “the term biological sex, as written into law many decades ago”

      Where was “the term ‘biological sex’ written into law many decades ago”?

      1. avatar Dude says:

        It was written as ‘sex’, Miner. Everyone understood the definition in 1964, and since then, to mean a biological male or female. Let’s not pretend that it was somehow ambiguous.

        1. avatar Miner69er says:

          Please forgive my little brother. He’s retarded.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          It’s early, and he’s already used up your pass for the day.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Oh, so the term ‘biological sex’ was not written into the law decades ago.

          0k.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          “Oh, so the term ‘biological sex’ was not written into the law decades ago.”

          It WAS written into law decades ago. It just didn’t verbatim state biological because everyone knew what sex meant.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Well, what do you know: one time Miner and I actually agree.

        SCOTUS allowing interpretation of the statutory use of “sex” as both “gender” and “orientation/identity” really doesn’t bother me in the least. (From my perspective, the entire statute is unconstitutional, in that it creates protected classes of citizens – an inherent violation of equal protection.) That decision pales in comparison to, say, the whole-cloth invention of a new tax (ACA), the whole-cloth invention of the constitutional protection against being ridiculed in Obergefell and the whole-cloth invention of the constitutional right to privacy in Roe.

        SCOTUS denying cert on all 2A cases (and on the qualified immunity cases) is a much, much bigger issue – and on that issue, I trust that the 4 conservatives held firm.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Most conservatives are fine with legislating from the bench as long as they agree with the outcome. It’s only bad when they don’t like the outcome. This is what not having principles looks like.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          My point is that this is, particularly by current standards, hardly “legislating from the bench”. And I neither agree nor disagree with the outcome (I think I made my position on the underlying statute quite clear).

        3. avatar Dude says:

          Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. I hope you’ll forgive me if I hold Alito’s and Kavanaugh’s opinion in higher regard than yours.

          https://d2qwohl8lx5mh1.cloudfront.net/8hVHe52Cq4sPdF0wEaTaCQ/content

          Alito dissenting opinion: “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.”

          Kavanaugh dissenting opinion: “Although both the House and Senate have voted at different times to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the two Houses have not yet come together with the President to enact a bill into law.”

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          No forgiveness required for mere difference of opinion (or for regard of one’s opinion). Besides, I recognize it as legislating from the bench. I just don’t see it as a degree of legislating from the bench to get terribly exercised over, in the context of all the ways that SCOTUS has legislated from the bench, or in the context of other actions taken and not taken by SCOTUS.

          I was mostly amazed that Miner and I found some common ground on something.

        5. avatar Dude says:

          Okay, I see.

  9. avatar CTstooge says:

    Makes sense. To our “betters”, POTG are second class citizens.

  10. avatar Debbie W. says:

    A) It is not the Bill Of Needs. It is The Bill Of Rights…
    B) Gun Control is Rooted In Racism and Genocide. That fact makes Gun Control a despicable agenda.
    C) Until Gun Control is seen for what it is and dealt with accordingly it will remain the noose around the Neck of Freedom.

  11. avatar DUMPSTER says:

    this should be the real protest/riots but gun owners just have too much class.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      We may come to armed conflict-“class” or not. POTG LIVES MATTER!!!

      1. avatar hal_greaves says:

        guess we’re just 2nd class people now according to the SCOTUS, tho

  12. avatar Dude says:

    “I’d rather die than withdraw. If they’re gonna kill me, they’re gonna kill me.” -Justice Clarence Thomas

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      One of my favorite quotes.

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

        What they did to him in that hearing fueled the hatred I have today for the political Left.

        Take special notice of just who it is who speaks first in this clip, it isn’t Thomas :

        1. avatar DinWA says:

          Biden at 01:45 says it all.
          Thomas is giving the committee the finger and Slow Joe wants to stab him.

        2. avatar 9x39 says:

          I well remember the faux scandal, and Biden’s part in it. That HE, of all people, is the favored by the party as the POTUS candidate speaks volumes about exactly who & what they, as a whole, have been ever since I was old enough to comprehend. I’d at least have held them in better regard if an avowed Socialist, Sanders had made the ticket instead. I honestly thought they could not go any lower than Hitlery, but they indeed have.

          From a balanced perspective even, anyone can see that the (D) are in a race for the first to reach rock bottom. I care not a whit for Trump personally, and that dislike spans back to the 80’s. However, as the default option against the above, he absolutely has my vote.

  13. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Just a few short weeks ago, the gun rights press was declaring “the end of gun control efforts for a generation,” all based on people buying firearms. I knew then such talk was premature.

    The courts are not on our side. If the Dems sweep the House, Senate and Presidency, we are sincerely f*ed. Who do we have as a candidate? The lackluster Trump, who started so well, but copped out on every one of his promises.

    The Republic is dead, slowly whittled away by the forces of so-called “progress.” We are living the end game of the hippy revolution started in the 1960s. For all of you who say you’ll “die in a pile of brass,” your chance may be coming.

    Soon.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      There could be truth in the fact gun sales skyrocketed and the court is trying to rein in what they see as a country tooling up. But it’s too late to disarm this country. They can’t stop looters, good luck with armed groups.

      1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        Increased gun sales doesn’t mean the gun-grabbers are gonna stop trying. One confiscation gone bad, and the MSM twisting the facts, and we’ll all be declared “terrorists.”

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          But the logistics, the reality, and the ability of them to actually implement anything close to UK or OZ plans is very remote. They are counting on scaring the shit out of legitimate gun owners and hope to build a Stasi style system that allows them to go after large collections with public shaming. even if they corked off all new gun sales today there are so many guns in circulation it wouldn’t matter. More would be smuggled in alongside drugs.

          As gun ownership approaches 50 percent of the country they are about to find themselves on the other side of the argument. Most are fucking hypocrites protected by armed security. I haven’t heard much from the anti gunners lately since images of stores being burned, cop cars on fire, and cops being assaulted are on TV. Those positions are losers.

          This isn’t a safe time for anyone. And when they pajama boys make a move on the suburbs they might find the situation not to their liking. The only thing protecting Antifa is people are simply afraid of breaking a law. Remove that stigma or any accountability and all hell breaks loose.
          I just hope it doesn’t come to that. People on both sides are going to get hurt.

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

          “Increased gun sales doesn’t mean the gun-grabbers are gonna stop trying.”

          Thanks to the 24-7 news cycle, Americans were just shown just why it is you need a semi-auto rifle with a magazine over ten rounds.

          The riots have been some powerful free messaging we just got for free.

          It can happen, and it COULD happen to THEM…

  14. avatar Jeff says:

    What stage of grief are we in? Are we past the denial yet?

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      I am.

  15. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    And to the clown at the protest in New Mexico yesterday, who shot someone, even in self-defense, you’re not helping matters. Ditto the LARPers that showed up in camo and toting semi-automatic rifles. These idiots confirm every stereotype that gun-grabbers have about gun owners. Plus, there’s a double-standard. BLM “protesters” can loot and pillage at will, with no punishment at all.

    Don’t take a firearm to a protest. You’re only making things worse.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      So let me get this straight. You acknowledge that the shooter may have done so in self defense. Had he not had a firearm he may have had his head smashed in. And you think he should take that one for the team? Or that only the left can protest because only they get away with crimes?

  16. avatar Joe says:

    For me, I just want the court to do their job without political or current influence. Just look at facts, constitution and argument on face value. Rule on line item basis if they choose, but have the BALLS to decide. This court could put all speculation to bed once and for all, but remains in background while lower courts disregard decisions.
    One other thing, all I wanted Trump to do in office was to push / pull thru national conceal carry law. He too has failed me in my view.
    Too bad I’m just a poor senior man that nobody listens to.
    Hopefully this GOVT won’t turn me into a felon before I die simply for owning and/or excersing my right to bear arms??!

  17. avatar kap says:

    Justice Thomas Hates white people, and the 2A to him is white privilege!

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Go soak your head.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    Clarence Thomas has the strongest spine of any justice in living memory. We are blessed with his service.

  19. avatar jram01 says:

    “Jimmy Beam says:
    June 16, 2020 at 10:01
    And to the clown at the protest in New Mexico yesterday………”😩

    Typical Ratpublican. 😭

  20. avatar rdsii64 says:

    There are 4 solid 2A justices and 4 solid anti 2A justices. The chief justice is a wild card that leans toward the anti 2A side. I believe that they going to wait until Justice Ginsburg is replaced with respect to hearing 2A cases. If that replacement is a solid 2A pick, then some of these case will be granted cert. As much as I want to see a few of these cases get heard now, I think this was a wise choice.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      That’s what we always hear, isn’t it? Just elect us one more time and let us get one more justice\term so we can finally deliver on our promises… then when it happens another justice suddenly becomes a ‘wildcard.’ Almost as if they want to keep the status quo…

  21. avatar Time to impeach the Supreme Court & vote in those who read the Constitution and uphold it........... says:

    Time to impeach the Supreme Court & vote in those who read the Constitution and uphold it………..

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    2A exists so we can protect ourselves against government. SCOTUS is government. Did you really expect one part of government to allow us to protect ourselves from the rest of government?

    C’mon, man. All three branches are part of the same conspiracy. Some of the players (like Thomas) are on our side, but most are the archenemies of freedom.

  23. avatar MarkPA says:

    Looks like over-the-road truck drivers have found the way to make the 2A worthy of respect.

    https://bearingarms.com/tomk/2020/06/15/not-be-only-problem-defund-police/?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=128a33173ead4d47a5012b0680b0551a

    Truck drivers are considering boycotting deliveries to jurisdictions that defund police. Read the article linked above.

    Interstate drivers have a real beef about being unable to carry across the state lines of about 8 – 12 states.

    So, let’s suppose that one of these states is the low-hanging fruit. For whatever constellation of reasons, imagine if – say Rhode Island – were a place where drivers just didn’t want to pickup/deliver. Maybe the traffic is terrible, they have to cross through states like MA which also discriminates against out-of-state residents. The food is bad. AND, RI isn’t particularly accommodating to non-resident applicants for permits.

    If drivers could reach a substantial agreement to boycott deliveries to that one state – until they grant recognition to all (or many) permits issued by other states – than this boycott would bring the 2A politics of such a state to its knees. And fast.

    I don’t know the logistics politics and economics of various transportation markets. I’m arbitrarily picking RI but for all I know, California might be a better choice. The point is to pick a state that is the lowest hanging fruit. Break the political back of the anti-gun legislators in that state and then look for the next candidate.

    We shouldn’t expect any group to carry ALL our water. It suffices if they carry THEIR OWN respective water. National reciprocity/recognition for interstate truck drivers ONLY.

    Then, next, we find some other possibility. E.g., what about the American market for – say apples. Arn’t they grown in Washington state? What if all the PotG decided that we could forego apples until the state legislature repeals some minor onerous law. Perhaps it’s the case that apple orchard owners have a lot of clout in the state legislature and they would wield it if necessary to their economic survival.

    The point, here, is that we PotG are not entirely powerless if our households are around 40% of the nation’s. If we can concentrate enough pressure – like cooking a hotdog on a solar grill – on a key weak-point we could break our political opposition.

    1. avatar DinWA says:

      Washington produces 65% of the entire U.S. fresh apple crop.

  24. avatar Jim Warren says:

    May Justice Roberts and RBG go in step.

  25. avatar The Olympic Snorch says:

    And you’ve all been tugging at the SC’s apron these last 10 years, lowering your expectations for Cadet Bonespurs as long as he appoints judges and sending in money for cases. You respond to one half-hearted act of kindness in 143 years of abuse like clingy puppies. The one thing you could control and you spent time and money to screw it up.

  26. avatar Ronald west says:

    Well lawabidding citizen’s grab your sticks and paper a marker and make some signs go to their place of work, their homes and state wide, let them know you have rights, let them know you put them in office and u can remove them, go over their heads! Write, petition ,visit talk with people who has the power to remove them from office, join the N.R.A. r some other oganations that stands for our rights to remain free and keep the 2nd Amendment alive and in the constitution book of the rights to freedom and to keep an bare arms.

  27. avatar CLIFF GREEP says:

    After reading all, or most of your comments concerning the 2A vs Chief Justice Roberts(and I use the term loosely), one of the problems is a failure to view the situation from the perspective of history: When Eisenhower was president, back in the fifties, he appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice, thinking him to be staunchly Conservative–but he turned out to be a radical leftist, ruling a ton of left-wing laws and other issues Constitutional. It resulted in a sea of billboards from coast-to-coast, calling for his impeachment, which got nowhere. Now, we have a new Earl Warren, and where do we go from here? History is repeating itself!!

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