The Supreme Court Needs to Re-Open for Second Amendment Business

Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

By Miguel A. Faria, M.D

In an article earlier this summer Dan Zimmerman, editor of The Truth About Guns, opined that the Supreme Court had been neither denying nor granting certiorari in Second Amendment cases. He wrote:

Ten gun rights-related cases are still awaiting a determination by the Supreme Court. The cases involve everything from ‘may issue’ carry permits to banning ‘assault weapons’ to the interstate sales of handguns. After the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case was declared moot by the Court, gun rights supporters have had high hopes that the Justices would grant cert to one or more of these for consideration next term. But that hasn’t happened.

The Court later denied cert to the ten cases waiting SCOTUS consideration.
Many of us agreed at the time with the four conservative justices’s judgment in holding off on the Court making any Second Amendment rulings — very likely because of the unreliability and unpredictability of Chief Justice John Roberts, who has transformed himself into a flip-flopping liberal in an attempt to keep the Supreme Court “apolitical.”

But this may change sooner than we expect with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Trump has vowed to proceed with the nomination of a new justice, a woman. Senator Mitch McConnell has likewise vowed to proceed with a vote on the Senate floor as soon as possible.

Two fantastic judges with incredible legal credentials are said to be at the top of the list of nominees; Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. I think conservatives and constitutionalists in general and Second Amendment proponents in particular would be happy to see either one of those women on high court.

Trump and the GOP leadership want to move toward nominating and confirming the nominee without delay, before Election Day on November 3 or during the lame-duck session.

But as I write these words, a great brouhaha has ensued as the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media want to hold off on filling the vacancy until after the election. Obviously, they have shown that is not what they would do if they themselves held the Presidency and the Senate.

It was Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid who changed the rules to allow for speedy confirmation of judges by allowing simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees. Of course, at that time, the rule favored the Democrats. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed within 42 days. So there is no reason why this process should not proceed without delay.

Democrats and their minions have responded with their usual tactics; intimidation and even the threat of violence. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to recommence impeachment proceedings against Trump, if he moves forward with the nomination. Radicals have threatened to shut down the country and presumably recommence rioting, looting, and burning.

But I think radicals have worn out the patience of the American people, who have had enough of “mostly peaceful” protests that by in-large have turned out to be not so peaceful, but rather violent and destructive.

More than five million people have bought firearms for the first time this year. Wanting to protect their homes, their families and their livelihoods, they bought guns because Democrats, who run most of the major cities where most of the civil unrest has been allowed to continue, have failed to protect local citizens and their businesses.

With either Barrett or Lagoa, the Supreme Court should finally be able to deal with outstanding Second Amendment issues that have been disturbingly ignored for so long. It is time the SCOTUS rules on issues such as the right to carry outside the home, the constitutionality of “assault weapons” bans, magazine capacity limits, and more. I say, let’s move full steam ahead with the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Miguel A. Faria, M.D., is Associate Editor in Chief in socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He was appointed and served at the behest of President George W. Bush as member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2002-2005. His recently released book is America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019).

comments

  1. avatar Durrrr says:

    I can’t wait to read what the four star general of the Keyboard Commando Corps. Geoff ‘the Goof’ PR has to say about this issue.

    Said no one, ever.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      You give more free publicity to Geoff than the msm does for Trump. Friggin’ awesome to find somebody as clueless as the press.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        I’m pretty sure this guy is a credentialed journo somewhere…the derangement level is about right. Trump kept ignoring him in press conferences, so the little toy poodle had to go bark at some other big dog’s ankles. (Jim Acosta…? Is that you?)

    2. avatar Jack says:

      I didn’t care before….. but now I really want to hear what Geoff had to say!!!!

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      Unrequited love is an ugly thing.

      1. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

        I still refuse to fuck him… 😉

        1. avatar possum says:

          I still have a couple barrels full of sail boat fuel and a pick up load of post holes, all I’m asking is $260 .95,50 for all of it. I’m not out to fckk nobody you can trust me on that

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    The Law if Unintended Consequences is a b!tch. If Trump’s SCOTUS nominee is seated, it won’t be a 6-3 court. Look for Roberts to go full Souter and join the radical left. Then it will be a 5-4 Court, with one of the majority so-called Originalist Justices getting all squishy.

    We’ve seen all of this before. Judges, representatives, bureaucrats, generals — they are all part of the same hypocrisy.

    “I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.”
    — H. L. Mencken

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      No good things have ever come from a president named Bush. Only thing that would have me vote for Hillary last time would have been if Bush had been our nominee

    2. avatar LKB says:

      I truly despise John Roberts, but I am not sure he will go full Souter. Roberts’ driving force appears to be that he appear important to himself; ideally, that he be the center of attention. (Souter, on the other hand, was an intellectual lightweight who just wanted to be liked by what he perceived were the “cool kids.”) If Roberts goes Souter, he becomes irrevelant and ushers in the era of the de facto Thomas Court.

      Let’s assume that ACB is nominated and confirmed. At that point, I suspect that the court would very quickly grant cert on the first decent 2A case they could get: Thomas, Alito, Goresuch, and Kavanaugh are all itching to do just that, and ACB would almost certainly join their ranks (especially if the dems have just tried to Kavanaugh her, which they are apparently ready to try and do). And Roberts recent “triangulating” in lieu of just “calling balls and strikes” has hardly endeared him to anyone, nor built him much of a store of credibility or respect that he might be able to draw from.

      So, if the case is heard:

      (A) If Roberts sides with the libs, it’s very probably 5-4 against him . . . and Saint Thomas is the senior judge in the majority and thus gets to assign the writing of the opinion (which I suspect he would assign to himself). And we can all imagine what that opinion would be like (although he may have to temper it somewhat to make sure and keep Kavanaugh on board (Goresuch and Alito are locks, and I suspect ACB would be as well).

      OTOH,

      (B) If Roberts votes with the majority (6-3), then as the CJ *he* gets to assign the writing of the opinion, and I suspect he’d either take it himself or assign it to Kavanaugh. He’d thus have some influence on how it gets written, although if he watered it down too much the other 5 in the majority could just dismiss it and write their own majority opinion.

      That appears to be exactly the calculus for his vote in favor of the sexual orientation opinion — he joined an opinion that was 180 degrees from his prior position, but as a result he, rather than RBG, got to assign the writing of the opinion (which he assigned to Goresuch, who prompted that mess by unexpectedly turning traitor). More importantly, it demonstrates the mind of John Roberts — he doesn’t seem to have any real principles other than his own desire to appear important. (The Obamacare decision is, of course, Exhibit A for this thesis.)

      So, if we assume that Roberts has gone soft on 2A cases out of some sort of “principle,” choice A would allow him to stand on his newfound “principle” (whatever it might be), but the he’d be removed entirely from the decision. OTOH, Choice B allows him some say in the matter.

      Does anybody think Roberts is going to stand on principle for anything (other than his own ego)? I do not.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        LKB,

        You have nailed Roberts’ personality (IMHO). He wants to make history and will side with those who can help him do so. He may stop flopping when the Court shows a strong backbone upon which he can lean.

      2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        “Let’s assume that ACB is nominated and confirmed. At that point, I suspect that the court would very quickly grant cert on the first decent 2A case they could get:…”

        In your opinion, would a decision be tight and narrow, or will Thomas “Release the Kraken”?

        1. avatar LKB says:

          Would Saint Thomas release the Krakken?

          I’m sure he’d like to, not just on 2A cases but also on qualified immunity, “dormant”commerce clause, and quite possible on libel/slander law (getting rid of the “public figure” exception). But as always, he knows you have to “get to five,” which means he has to temper his opinion.

          I think Alito, Goresuch, and probably ACB would be 100% on board with a full-throated Thomas opinion. The question, as I alluded to above, would be Kavanaugh. So far, he’s talked a good game, but as I miscalled his vote in NYSR&PA, who knows whether he might try to tack things more toward the middle?

          But the possibility that Kavanaugh would go along with a Thomas screed is exactly why I think Roberts will rediscover his support for 2A if ACB or a similar person is nominated and confirmed. He can avoid the possibility of Thomas “releasing the Krakken” by voting with the majority, and then he either writes the opinion or assigns it to Kavanaugh.

  3. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    I still for the life of me could not fathom why scotus did not take on the case regarding Massachusetts licensing procedures where I can live across the street from my neighbor and we both apply for a permit at the same time but live in different cities and even though we are neighbors, I get a concealed carry permit but my neighbor across the street is denied a concealed carry permit not because of background or anything else, just that persons address. I honestly would need a justice to explain that to me very carefully that such an action is in any way constitutional. Any judge that looks at that and says ‘sounds fair to me’ needs a mental health evaluation. Yet here we are.

    I’d also like to put the farsical AWB laws in a coffin for long term burial as well.

    1. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

      “I still for the life of me could not fathom why scotus did not take on the case regarding Massachusetts licensing procedures where I can live across the street from my neighbor and we both apply for a permit…”

      They couldn’t rely on Robert’s vote, so the other justices decided to pass on hearing it.

      SCOTUS is the last stop in the US justice system. They had to be *certain* they had the votes before they granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case).

      With luck, things are about to change in a big way, in our favor. After the justice is seated, if it’s announced a 2A case will be heard, that’s a good indication some positive changes are on the way… 🙂

  4. avatar Kyle says:

    As always, I’m hopeful that the courts will rule our way, but I do not believe, Heller and McDonald not withstanding, that the courts have any great desire to rule in our favor on the 2nd amendment.

    No government wants its citizens armed, not even ours.

    How I’d love to be proven wrong this time.

    The courts, the Legislature, and the president, never fail to fail on the 2nd amendment, I doubt they will now.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Kyle gets it. Government is about power. Guns are about power. Government wants all the power, so it must have all the guns.

      Why does government want all the power? So it can abuse it with impunity, that’s why.

      1. avatar possum says:

        As much as we would like to disillusion ourselves I really do not think the American government fears the citizens firegunm. It may have at one time, when citizens could purchase anything the military processed. But not now, a one man army with an AR aint much to fear. What I think Our government fears more then gunms is the division of the races coming together. Kinda like, as long as their fighting each other they ain’t demanding from us. To bad BLM turned into a shit storm, I think it had a little help from the powers that be.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Wisdom from opossum, he sees it clearly.

          The rich man divides the population into warring factions based on imaginary religious or ethnic differences, in order to control and profit from the labor of the masses.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          Which is exactly why democrats have doubled down on identity politics even when it backfired on them in 2016. That’s also why they’re blaming everyone’s problems on the white man. If there isn’t anyone to blame, people will begin taking a closer look at the politicians that have been in charge. They’ve mostly been getting away with this because the dishonest, biased media runs cover for them.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          You must be a rich man, miner. You keep trying to split the masses on racial lines.

        4. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          They call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for a reason. It has never in it’s entire history had more than men with weapons slightly more primitive than the empire that was currently invading. Until they had the weapons of the empire that was currently invading.

          An insurgency is not about defeating an enemy on the battlefield. It is about bleeding an enemy dry. Individuals and small groups with no connection and no more unified goal than “make the bastards pay” can do that.

          I agree that the powers that be fear a free market society unified across all racial, religious, an cultural lines. But I believe they also fear the guns. And they fear the mind set the “I can do something” which comes with the guns.

    2. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

      “The courts, the Legislature, and the president, never fail to fail on the 2nd amendment, I doubt they will now.”

      Really, Kyle?

      Thanks to the 2010 Heller-McDonald case, it’s now legal to have a handgun in your home in NYC, San Fransisco, Chicago, and other Leftist shitholes.

      Before 2010, it was illegal…

  5. avatar Anymouse says:

    The change from a 4-4-1 Court to 5-3-1 is interesting. Will Roberts side with the libs and make more 5-4 decisions (“balanced court”), or will he side with the Constitutionalists/constructionists for more decisive 6-3 decisions and the ability to pick who writes the majority opinions? Will he continue to dither aimlessly back and forth if his vote doesn’t matter?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Roberts will do a Burger. Flip-flop-flip.

      Understand how the Court works. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he chooses the Justice to write the majority opinion — which can be himself. If the CJ is in the minority, then the senior Justice in the majority appoints the writer.

      Burger would switch from dissent to majority so he could exercise more control over the majority opinion, either writing it himself or appointing the writer. Roberts is likely to do the same. He’s that much of a snake.

  6. avatar Paul says:

    I don’t see a need to rush into hearing a case, TBH. I tend to gloat a little when the progressive left takes a hit, but rushing to decide a small buttload of 2A issues goes a bit far. It can wait until next session. It’s enough that we spank the left’s asses for now with a properly balanced Supreme Court.

    Besides, if the progressives cry themselves out before Christmas, we’ll miss the opportunity to savor more tears next year!

  7. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Perhaps one day the USSC will determine that eBay has been discriminating against sellers of legal firearm parts, accessories, etc. for many years
    Even if you list an item on eBay that others are selling you can be singled out and your item removed. The wine and cheese eBay crowd sits around and profits off thousands of firearm parts that they claim violate their so called Assault Weapon policy. Who are these high and mighty twerps running the show at eBay? They selectively remove parts and accessories that are legal in 50 States and that includes their HQ state of CA.
    On one side of their mouths the eBay screwballs will tell you they have to comply with CA Law. On the other side of their mouth they cannot produce a single reason why a listing they removed is legal in all 50 states and does comply with CA law.
    Bottom line…The eBay ratbassturds need to be served a class action suit and held liable in a court of law for what is the dictionary and law book definition of discrimination.

    1. avatar possum says:

      eBay, really, your going off on the injustices of eBay? You should be more like me, a delusional paranoid who won’t buy anything online because “they” track everything you buy. Cashncarry, no paper trails for me thank you. Boycott online purchasing, it’s going to bite us in the ass in the future. To much trust, have you ever wondered why that if you can’t afford a cellular phone the gov will give you one free? When everyone had a land line (needing a wire tap) the government wasn’t giving poor old grandma a free phone, now that these phones are spy devices, well hell, everyone gets one whether you can afford it or not. Something to think about.

      1. avatar SouthAl says:

        It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

        1. avatar DinWA says:

          And being paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you!

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          I’m only paranoid because everyone is against me!

          Major Frank Burns US Army, MASH 4077

  8. avatar Jamoke A' Cola says:

    >”We’re here to remember RBG—champion for justice”

    I guess she never heard of all the times RBG bent over backwards to shit on the various Native American tribes that had their various treaties infringed upon by the Fed.gov and basically she told them to pound sand anyway.

    Where is their justice?

  9. avatar Optimistic Engineer says:

    I cannot believe we have to justify a right.

    1. avatar possum says:

      I can’t believe those rights are dictated to us by nine high mucky mucks

  10. avatar Dude says:

    “But I think radicals have worn out the patience of the American people”

    Even regular democrats are uneasy about it and aware of it. My dad is a lifelong democrat. Since he’s retired, he’s getting back into working on campaigns. He called me today to ask if he could put a U.S. Rep political sign in my yard. He said she’s a democrat but not one of those far left crazies. I’ve never even discussed far left crazies with him before, yet he felt the need to assure me of that. This district hasn’t elected a democrat in 150 years, and then only for one term, so we’ll see.

    1. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

      Ask her what her position is on guns before you stick that sign in your yard…

      1. avatar Dude says:

        I declined the offer. I’m not putting any sign in my yard. After the Russia hoax, the Kavanaugh hearings, the impeachment joke, and too many other alarming things to list, I don’t see myself ever voting democrat again.

  11. avatar possum says:

    We the People get yet another person of great power that doesn’t know the meaning of Shall Not Be Infringed. The second amendment wouldn’t even be an issue if Judges of the past/ present weren’t dumber then a possum. That an “Appointed for Life”, okay I’m all for that, takem out back and cut their heads off when they retire. Bet they’d change that rule right fast. No one in America should have the power of the Supreme Court for life, that’s a dictatorship.

  12. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Why would anyone think that the SCOTUS is the least bit interested rolling back the thousands of gun laws on the books? The 2A was designed and written to be a restriction on Government, and follows from the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, as does the Constitution itself. SCOTUS is still part of the Government, are they not? So why would they not endeavor to maintain control of arms in the hands of the general population? It would not be in their own best interest to overturn the NFA and all subsequent laws.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Look up the safe school law that was actually judged unconditional, Congress send a big FU to the court and passes it again and tacked in the Commerce Clause. The Court is not truly independent and has no real power. It needs to be careful about maintain it’s legitimacy. There is no way they will ever overturn the NFA (at least for machine guns). The support just does not exist.

  13. avatar J says:

    Justice RBG should have retired 3 or 4 more years ago from her illness. She was determined to do what she did and hold out for a anti-2nd Amendment President. She ran out of time. Now, we have a chance to finally advance 2nd Amendment issues hopefully. Just need to replace Justice Roberts. California and other anti-2nd Amendment states are probably in a panic right now, since several 2nd Amendment cases are making their way through the lower federal courts.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Just need to replace, , ,,,and how pray tell does one do that when they are appointed for life?

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        The Legislature has the power to impeach and remove a SC member, but it’s very high bar.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          March 12, 1804
          Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, an ardent Federalist supporter, was known for his open partisanship both on and off the bench. He campaigned vigorously for John Adams in the election of 1800, and in 1803, gave a grand jury charge in the U.S. circuit court in Maryland that was sharply critical of the Republicans for repealing the 1801 judiciary statute and abolishing the circuit judgeships that act had established. The grand jury charge proved highly controversial and led many to call for Chase’s removal from the bench. In March 1804, after debating what constituted proper grounds for impeachment, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase. The Maryland grand jury charge formed the basis for one of the eight articles of impeachment because of its allegedly seditious intent, while most of the others focused on allegedly improper behavior during politically charged trials such as the Sedition Act prosecutions. During his twenty-two day trial before the Senate, Chase argued that he could not be impeached for errors in judgment or improper behavior on the bench, but rather only for an indictable offense. On March 1, 1805, the Senate acquitted Chase when none of the eight articles of impeachment secured the votes of two-thirds of the members as was required for conviction. Chase’s impeachment helped to set the parameters of what kinds of conduct would warrant a judge’s removal from the bench. Although there had been one earlier judicial impeachment, involving John Pickering of New Hampshire, it was such a clear case of disability that it was not very useful as a precedent. Chase’s acquittal served as a tacit victory for his position that an indictable offense was required to meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for the impeachment and conviction of a federal judge. More than two centuries later, only eight federal judges have been removed by impeachment. In the twentieth century, Congress examined proposals for the removal of federal judges whose conduct did not rise to the level required for impeachment, but none was enacted, due in large part to doubts about the constitutionality of such a measure.

  14. avatar Darkman says:

    The Judicial branch of both the State and Federal governments have been and continue to be the most dangerous parts of government. From their refusal to address questions of Civil Rights to the Activism of Abortion and Obama Care. When judges are put on the bench and use that Power to legislate laws and Insert Rights that have no basis in the Constitution. They have become Tyrants to Power. Knowing they do have to answer to the Citizenry on their rulings without Recourse adds to their ability to Rule by Decision. This was one of the Fears of the Founders. That the courts would be used to Legislate from the bench. Unfortunately that is exactly what has transpired over the last 100 years. Unless and until such time the the citizenry wrest this uncontrollable Power from the Courts. They will continue to abuse the Powers they were granted and refuse to be held accountable for their Actions. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  15. avatar Hannibal says:

    The democratic party can rend its shirt all it wants but it has no cards here, other than to try and get some votes via outrage.

    Conversely, the GOP has no obstacles in its way… unless it wants to play the same electoral outrage game.

    1. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

      “The democratic party can rend its shirt all it wants but it has no cards here, other than to try and get some votes via outrage.”

      I look at it this way – If we get Amy Coney Barrett seated, even if Trump is a one-term president, he will have succeeded beyond my expectations of him in 2016.

      And if he is re-elected (a solid chance of that happening), he will be the most consequential president in my lifetime for his impact on the judiciary as a whole.

      I’m happy as hell for what we have now. 4 more years, and a decent chance of yet another Leftist to replace on the high court? Yowsers! 😉

  16. avatar Cale15 says:

    👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
    These fudds don’t get it! This is exactly why our 2A was put there! FYI had nothing to do with hunting , but had everything to deal removing tyrants alive or dead!

  17. The RepubliCONs, Libertarians, constitutionalists, etc…NEED to grow a pair when dealing with the Demo communist party! Instead of whining that everyone and everything is about to lose all freedom and liberty! They NEED to stand up and say enough is enough!

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Ehhh…I’m of the opinion WE 2A folks need to start a 2nd American Revolution. We got the firepower! Oh & congratulations Indiana gun owner’s. FREE lifetime carry concealed or open carry(Sept. 1). Just another reason to move a mile east…

  19. avatar sound awake says:

    AND the 14th…

  20. avatar Daniel Hoover says:

    I have plenty of ammo. Bring it on. C’mon MAN

  21. avatar Nanashi says:

    Overturn the US v. Miller show trial!

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