will not comply handcuffs
Courtesy Jeff Hulbert
Previous Post
Next Post

By Theresa Inacker

Why does it seem that liberal extremists are pursuing new infringements on gun rights seemingly unchecked? Why do we have an escalated situation in Virginia where liberal politicians seek to further infringe the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, threatening imprisonment and even violence against Constitutional gun owners who have committed no crimes?

This is due to a failure of our system of checks and balances. Due to a failure of the courts to deal with a barrage of important Second Amendment cases over the last ten years, we are perilously off balance.

In 2008, we had the epic Heller decision, and the subsequent McDonald decision in 2010, which applied Heller to the states. In the more than 10 years since those decisions were handed down, we have seen relentless encroachments on Second Amendment rights by extreme anti-rights fanatics.

When will it ever end? When will the Supreme Court make it end?

The response by gun rights supporters to these continued, ongoing infringements has been appropriate: seek redress using the three branches of government. Specifically, file lawsuit after lawsuit begging the Judiciary to enforce Heller’s holdings on concepts like individual rights and common-use.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary has repeatedly ignored these petitions for redress—a complete and dangerous failure to enforce the provisions enumerated in the Heller decision. The results have been a painful, unconstitutional existence for those of us in states like New Jersey and, most recently, it has brought Virginia to the edge of chaos.

This judicial hibernation, combined with the limitless funding of special interest groups and individuals like gun control sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg’s funding of Moms Demand Action and Everytown, has resulted in a highly explosive situation.

Since 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined the opportunity to grant several petitions for certiorari.

In 2014, the Court denied the petition in a New Jersey case asking the critical question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside the home. See Drake v. Filko. In 2017, the petition for cert was denied in Peruta v. San Diego.

These denials have resulted in terrible consequences. They have provided liberal, anti-gun rights extremists an unfettered highway to infringement.

On the micro level, in the repeated failure to act swiftly in upholding the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court itself has placed citizens like New Jerseyians (who are automatically denied a right to carry) in danger of criminal activity and terror, such as we saw in the recent Texas church shooting.

The Court’s failure to act has also placed us in danger on the macro level, such as in Virginia where politicians have threatened to use the National Guard against the state’s citizens and to jail those who have committed no crimes.

The Court must act soon. It is abundantly clear, despite a dearth of reporting by the mainstream media, that complete civilian disarmament is the end goal. Americans will not allow them to succeed.

New Jersey has several cases in the pipeline in which we are seeking to enforce the provisions outlined in the Heller case. There is currently the magazine ban case, ANJRPC v. Grewal, where obvious, patent issues about common use are at the forefront. That case is currently making its way from the 3rd Circuit.

Additionally there are at least four cases pending consideration by the Supreme Court involving the question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Four. A log-jam in you will

They are: Cheeseman v. Polillo, Rogers v Grewal, Ciolek v. New Jersey, and Gould v. Morgan.

And let us not forget New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, a case the Court did agree to hear and in which oral arguments have already been heard.

Each and every one of these cases shows how reasonable constitutional gun owners have been in utilizing the judiciary to redress our grievances. It is now incumbent on the Court to wake from its slumber.

So long as the Court fails to act in any of these cases, extremists will remain unchecked, continuing to infringe the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. Gun control proponents are laser-focused on constitutional gun owners and will pursue their civilian disarmament agenda until we are all plunged into chaos.

So long as those extremists go unchecked, we will be off balance. The only way to avert this powder keg situation is for the Supreme Court to finally act and to rule — unequivocally — in favor of Second Amendment proponents.

This is not just rhetoric. There can be no compromises. This right is not negotiable.


Theresa Inacker is an attorney, a mom, a pheasant hunter, an AR-15 sporting rifle owner, a former editor of the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal and has been admitted to the US Supreme Court Bar. She is Communications Director for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners and the New Jersey ambassador for the DC Project


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Fairly sure most of TTAG reader’s know all this…I guess because it’s Sunday you’re preaching teaching the choir! I suggest Drumph should step in and contend for the 2nd Amendment. He won’t bother as he ASSumes we’ll all vote for him. My Illinois vote won’t matter…how about all you(for now!)Red State boyz?!?

  2. The supremes are as much politicians now as the DNC. You enforces the bill of rights, not interpret it!

    • The new mentality of America: Gun control is constitutional because the conservative judges said so. Don’t like it? Get the supreme court to change their mind if you can get them to take up the case.

      • “The new mentality of America: Gun control is constitutional because the conservative judges said so.”

        Seems to more akin to, “We can’t let the law/constitution, stand in the way of doing the right thing.”

  3. The author is listed as “an attorney”. We have no information as to whether she specializes in constitutional law, or family law. The upshot is a lack of understanding that courts can enforce nothing (courts have no dedicated, faithful, responsive, untouchable, executive force of their own) . The failure of favorable rulings regarding the Second Amendment is the social contract underpinning the Second Amendment is utterly broken.

    Not only can the courts enforce nothing, there is no penalty for lower courts to defy superior courts. And there is no penalty for any level of government to defy any court (fines are paid by government agencies only if those agencies agree to do so).

    As to checks and balances, these too are based on a voluntary agreement to abide by laws and courts. To “enforce” anything, courts must resort to requesting executive/administrative agencies to use their police powers to make court rulings stick. If the executive/administrative agencies refuse, the last-ditch protection is for legislative bodies to refuse to fund executive/administrative agencies unless and until enforcement of court orders is carried out. The founders were not ignorant of this sort of standoff. They well understood that the entire republic thing was fully contingent of “if you can keep it”. That phrase also encompassed the social compact that the republic was based on “the rule of law”. When that foundation crumbles, so does the republic.

    Now, put yourselves into the day-to-day workings of a court. Would you want to spend your time settling matters most likely to be honored by the opposing parties, or spend time issuing rulings you know will lead to nothing but more of the same?

    It is not up to the Supreme Court to defend “Heller”. It is up to the voters to collectively insist, through elections, to enforce rulings. To date, the voters seem quite happy with the way things work.

    “The fault, dear Brutus, in not in our stars, but in ourselves….”

    • Yes, yes, as that former president said, “they made their ruling… now let us see them enforce it.”

      Good points. I disagree that the court doesn’t have a responsibility to defend the law as written in regards to ALL of our rights, not just those favored by the squeakiest wheel in society (the Left).

      Some of the SCOTUS judges have, indeed, acknowledged that the court is treating the 2nd amendment as a 2nd class right, and issuing dozens of decisions on the 1st while refusing cert for scores of cases on the 2nd.

      • “I disagree that the court doesn’t have a responsibility to defend the law as written in regards to ALL of our rights,”

        How would such defense unfold? There is a huge difference between making a ruling that aligns with the constitution, and “defending” such ruling. The courts have a responsibility to rule in alignment with the constitution. Not sure multiple, repetitive, identical rulings on the same matter can be considered “defending”.

        To “defend” a position implies some capability to repel an intrusion. The courts have no such capability. The only “defense” of Heller is grounded in what the people of the country do to ensure the government functions properly. Unfortunately, we can only repel intrusions one-at-a-time, while the assaults are pervasive and endless.

        • I will use another turn of phrase, rather than “defend”.

          I think SCOTUS must grant cert, hear, and decide cases according to traditional and originalist interpretations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court must do this for a substantially similar number of 2nd amendment cases as they do for 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and other amendment cases, rather than the present tendency to hear every 1st amendment case and most others, while specifically rejecting ALL 2nd amendment cases.

          By giving an equal importance to all of our enumerated freedoms, the SCOTUS “defends” our rights, reminding the lower courts that all cases must be decided per the rule of law rather than their emotional preferences, or policy ideals. And SCOTUS must smack down lower courts that intentionally and repeatedly ignore precedent.

          That, to my way of thinking, is “defending” the 2nd. And all our other rights.

          • “I think SCOTUS must grant cert, hear, and decide cases according to traditional and originalist interpretations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

            Agree, one might label that “defense”. In the title, however, it is a specific ruling that is cited as a failure to defend. Using your criteria, the SC “defended” Heller by making the ruling. The SC cannot, however, add to emphasis or enforcement to that ruling.

            Even assuming a fully “conservative” court (7-2), and assuming a smack-down of any regulation of firearms, how would such a ruling be defended, as in enforced? Ruling in favor of every 2A case brought by POTG is not defending any other ruling. That is where everything breaks down; enforcement.

        • Sam. I have personally witnessed a federal judge, not at scotus level, that had city officials arrested and brought before him in chains by US Marshals. After a few days in contempt of court in the lock up these men were more than happy to abide by a federal court decision.

          You keep saying that federal courts cannot enforce their decisions. But they can. With force if needed.

          • Anecdotal events are not indicative of either intent, or power.

            There are 3846 marshals for the entire nation. There are 3141 counties. We have 310 cities (pop: 100,000+). 16,411 towns (pop: less than 10,000).

            Let’s assume each jurisdiction has three senior officials. That is 16,721 potential people in opposition to a court order. We know 16,721 will not rebel at a court order, a single court order. For discussion, we will use 3% in opposition (3% = commonly accepted percent of the colonists rebelling against Britain). The net is 501. 501 to be arrested and brought to court. A roundup of that magnitude, restricted to duly elected officials, would be a severe undertaking. Raising the percentage of non-compliance only makes matters worse for marshals attempting to enforce court orders.

            What fraction of the marshal force would be needed to conduct the roundup? Federal courts cannot dragoon local LE to enforce federal law. “One riot, one Ranger” is not the marshal service motto. However it is done, the marshal service takes on an entirely new effort, disrupting significantly ongoing operations.

            Point is, the courts cannot widely enforce their rulings. They do not have an army. If an army is needed, the courts must order the executive branch to use federal forces to enforce their orders in all jurisdictions. The executive likely would act, but could defy the courts without retribution.

            The “enforcement” of court orders is actually predicated on the idea that laws will generally be followed because total disregard for court orders would result in utter chaos. The enforcement power of the courts is the good will of law-abiding people, not the power of arrest (coercion). The evidence of lack of enforcement power is obvious in the defiance by lower courts of Heller/McDonald, and of the gun-hating states and localities.

            The founders declared that the courts would be the least among the three branches because they lacked power to exist, or enforce. “The Judiciary will always be least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.”
            – – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

        • Sam. The federal law dogs just need to round up a few. Just a handful. And when they are in a federal lock up the message will get out.

          There are no true believers at the top of the anti gun crowd. Yes, they have fools like vlad and miner49er to manipulate and use as cannon fodder. But the first time a newsome or clinton or pelosi does the perp walk for defying a federal court will be the last time its needed.

          The south is certainly no longer segregated.

          • “The south is certainly no longer segregated.”

            True, but not because of courts enforcing anything. It was the executive branch.

            And the general acceptance of the rule of law. Not fear of arrest.

      • How do the references connect to the “…Failure to Defend Heller….”?

        BTW, the Supreme Court would decide that which constitutes a violation of those references, should a case based on them ever arise.

    • “Not only can the courts enforce nothing, there is no penalty for lower courts to defy superior courts. And there is no penalty for any level of government to defy any court (fines are paid by government agencies only if those agencies agree to do so).”

      A little thick on the hyperbole, Samuel.

      If it was as true as you said it was, then why did Chicago, San Fran, and NYC start to shall-issue gun permits after the McDonald decision was handed down?

      Their generosity and love for their fellow man? Their love, dedication and respect for the 2A they have? Because any true Leftists city would have spat on the McDonald decision and refused to grant permits for those evil guns they hate with a passion. For the children, don’t ya know… 🙂

      (Side note – Yeah, your new years’ with the family certainly stank. Try some malicious compliance with their order for you not to use the BIL as a fun punch-toy – Next time you see them, don’t say a word. Just stare them down when they go full full Leftist and barely contain your laughter. Then fail at that, and start laughing at them to their face. Make it seem you are the only one who knows the joke you’re laughing at. It will *infuriate* them. The madder they get, laugh all the louder until tears are streaming down your face…:) )

      • “If it was as true as you said it was, then why did Chicago, San Fran, and NYC start to shall-issue gun permits after the McDonald decision was handed down?”

        It certainly wasn’t due to any “defense” (enforcement) of Heller/McDonald by the SC. While there have been some instances of acceptance of Heller/McDonald, the anti-gun mafia persists in creating bills and laws that fly in the fact of those decisions. There is a reason for that.

        • “… the anti-gun mafia persists in creating bills and laws that fly in the fact of those decisions. There is a reason for that.”

          It was the same with the civil rights era for Blacks. States and localities were bound and determined to harass Blacks, no matter what the courts said.

          We need to apply the civil rights-era playbook to gun rights…

          • “We need to apply the civil rights-era playbook to gun rights…”

            Agree, but question is why that hasn’t been done, already? We seem stuck on “shall not be infringed”, or some variation. We are stuck fighting for “gun rights” rather than civil rights.

    • This is undeniably correct.

      Even if the Court was of the mind to “defend” it’s ruling the swarm tactics the antis are using would overwhelm the court. They could take a 2A related case for every case for years and still have more on the list. That’s assuming states listened to the previous rulings rather than simply ignoring them.

      The answer lies in an electorate that values the BoR and, honestly, most people just don’t. Statistically age or demographic status matter little. The TL;DR crowd took over decades ago. They’re ignorant and they don’t care to not be. What matters is maintaining whatever it is that they value in their cushy life. They don’t really give a fuck about anything else.

      You can see symptoms of this all over the place. From the obesity rates, or what’s funded or talked about in the sciences, to how agencies from the FDA to the BIA operate, to falling standardized test scores in schools. The evidence is everywhere and it’s obvious yet the majority of the population is ever more oblivious. They’re more concerned about some brain-rotting TV show or what some dipshit celeb recommends for clam-care (see Gwyneth Paltrow). They’d rather trash other people in online troll warz based on some asinine “division” between themselves that’s easier, and more fun, to exacerbate than to close.

      The problem isn’t the courts in America. It’s the Americans.

      • strych9,

        The problem isn’t the courts in America. It’s the Americans.

        I agree for the most part.

        I do believe it would help significantly if the courts unfailingly upheld Common Law and the United States Constitution. That would be a foundation upon which to build coalitions, allegiances, and dare I say affections.

        Unfortunately, we have a lot of selfish, narcissistic, greedy people in our nation. Our government employees, one way or another, reflect that fact.

        • “Unfortunately, we have a lot of selfish, narcissistic, greedy people in our nation. Our government employees, one way or another, reflect that fact.”

          Not all of us. I was fat, slothful, disinterested, and failed to ever get a perfect attendance ribbon.

          But I was cunning.

        • “I do believe it would help significantly if the courts unfailingly upheld Common Law and the United States Constitution.”

          It certainly couldn’t hurt.

          But really what POTG in general need to do on the 2A and the rest of the BoR is lead by example. As a group we fail at that and we fail at it badly. Our image sucks. You can see it in the contempt with which the antis refer to us. They’re quite open about that. The reason isn’t actually that much of a mystery.

          Ask yourself this question: Why is Shannon Watts the face of MDA?

          I don’t mean “because she gets paid” or some shit like that. I mean why her? Why HER specifically? Why does SHE have that job? It’s not because of her former work. I can tell you that for an ironclad fact.

        • I’ll venture an answer, Strych9.

          Watts actually is the face of that evil organization in part because of her former work. Not because of the jobs themselves, but because the things that made her good at those jobs transfer well to her current one.

          She knows how to present a smiling, earnest, well-coiffed image for the camera. She knows (and/or the people behind her do) what the public wants to hear and what it doesn’t — more than that, she knows that people are driven by emotion and assumptions more than anything else. She plays to what makes ordinary people (not cantankerous conservatarians) feel valued and safe. And she cultivates a cuddly public image that everyone can identify with.

          On the polar opposite side are gun people. (Note for people who aren’t Strych9: this is a very *general* description, not a claim that everyone is exactly like this.) We rant and rave about logic and rights and other esoteric crap, routinely fail to read social situations (stepping right into negative assumptions), and end up making literally everyone — members of the club included — bored, uncomfortable, or angry. It doesn’t matter that we’re right when it’s so easy for anyone with a camera or a microphone to make us come off wrong. Hell, half the time they don’t even have to *make* us come off wrong; that’s just what we do.

          And yet, despite all that, we haven’t lost. (Not yet.) We made huge gains during the past 35 years. The forces against us are as strong as they’ve ever been, and far better funded, yet we’re still keeping up and even making gains in some places (for now). Truth and facts somehow reach people anyway.

          Just imagine what would happen if our side actually learned how to persuade and organize!

          This is what frustrates me. I can see these things working (and not working). I can help make persuasive communication truly *work.* But I’m not an organizer or a public speaker or any kind of leader. I’m just a technician, and without an organization to provide money and leadership, I’m useless. Just a single voice speaking into the void.

          Okay…wow. That turned personal all of a sudden-like. But eh, whatever. I stand behind all of it.

        • “She knows how to present a smiling, earnest, well-coiffed image for the camera.”

          True and that doesn’t hurt her at all. Her previous job taught her well.

          But it’s a bit more basic than that. At root it’s that she’s kinda hot. Look her up on Google and check the image that comes up on the right side of the screen. Her in a red shirt split with a book cover for “Fight Like a Mother”.

          Think that’s an accident? It’s not. Attractive people start out with an advantage in that people are automatically more accepting of what an attractive person says, especially if that person is a woman. This is known and used all the time in advertising. Attractive people sell shit better than normies. That’s a simple fact.

          Put and it just works. Put crudely, guys wanna do her and ladies wanna be her. She’s a good pitch person for that reason. She sells the message better AND when she runs into trouble she can smooth things over easier because people want attractive people, especially ladies, to like them. This isn’t even advertising 101, it’s middle-school psychology.

          That’s the kind of thing we’re up against. Basic shit like this that we don’t get right. If we were to start getting that right we wouldn’t have half the fights we do in places like VA because the antis would never get as far as they do.

        • “Put and it just works” should read “Put an attractive person in it and it just works”.

          No idea how the heck that happened. My bad.

        • “Just a single voice speaking into the void.”

          I forgot to address this.

          Despair not. There is a fundamental difference between you and Shannon Watts, an advantage that she can never have and only you can lose for yourself. That difference is that you’re right and you can honestly be called “grassroots”.

          Mentor a kid. Take a coworker shooting for the first time. Simple shit like that “grows the brand”. It also defeats advertising. People trust what they know for better or for worse. If you do a good job, make a good impression etc etc when people hear someone like Watts talk they’ll say “I dunno about that. I should ask someone”. If you’re the person they ask, you’re very likely to win that one because you’re a known quantity and Watts is just an advertiser. On a basic level people know this.

          People trust their friend or coworker who brews his own beer a lot more than they trust tits on the tube selling them Brand X Drunk Juice.

        • Well, Mrs. Watts is repellent to me in every way…sometimes you can just tell something’s off with a person, and for me she’s one of those…but you’re right.

          Her single best asset is that she’s a reasonably decent-looking female — second is that unlike many decent-looking females, she doesn’t have a yawning void between her ears. That fact alone means she’s basically hacked the system. Give her a message crafted by people who know how persuasion works, and you’ve got what amounts to a Cyberdyne Systems Terminator for the PR arena.

          Also, you’re right about the despair part of it. Seeing the enemy’s well-oiled machine humming away next to our side’s creaky old Rube Goldberg contraptions, it’s easy to think we’ve already lost. (Hell, just look at the pathetic thing that calls itself Vlad for a cautionary tale.) Maybe we have…but I don’t think so. I just think gun people are making this a lot harder than it has to be. And damn, is it tiring.

        • Some thoughts on that topic from Marcus Aurelius:

          “Every hour be firmly resolved…to accomplish the work at hand with fitting and unaffected dignity, goodwill, freedom, justice. Banish from your thoughts all other considerations. This is possible if you perform each act as if it were your last, rejecting every frivolous distraction, every denial of the rule of reason, every pretentious gesture, vain show, and whining complaint against the decrees of fate. Do you see what little is required of a man to live a well-tempered and god-fearing life? Obey these precepts, and the gods will ask nothing more. Your days are numbered. Use them to throw open the windows of your soul to the sun. If you do not, the sun will soon set, and you with it.”

    • A couple of holes in your argument, Sam:

      1: The Supreme Court can indeed make their rulings stick. They were more than willing to make Roe v. Wade stick, and that one was FAR less popular than their 2A rulings (and in fact completely outside their Constitutional lane, but that didn’t stop them). Whether due to ideologues mucking up the works or simple fecklessness or something else entirely, the SC hasn’t even *tried* to make their Second Amendment jurisprudence stick.

      2: Being unable to directly enforce the law is not the same as having no force. The Supreme Court’s rulings — when they’re willing to back them up — have vast force, as they direct the judiciary (a conservative institution in which precedent and procedure are everything). They’re the supreme providers of judiciary precedent, and the judiciary is what legitimizes the institutions that *do* apply force to the public.

      • SCOTUS can make clear in its next 2A case what passes Constitutional muster, and how inferior courts have screwed the pooch.

        Citizens have the right to buy, build, possess and own (keep), publicly carry openly or concealed (bear), any weapon they choose that may or may not be used by the military, including all military service weapons, so long as they are not currently incarcerated felons.

        Exercising this right does not require permission, nor can it legally be subject to a fee, tax or license/permit. All FOID CARDS, CCW permits, premises permits, etc, are unconstitutional, just as a poll tax is unconstitutional. The weapons citizens may choose to own and carry are not limited to those that existed 200 years ago, or to those in existence today. The 2A protects weapons such as lasers and plasma cannons, and tools we have not yet even imagined. Any weapon that can be carried and employed as a personal defensive weapon is protected.

        Any law a local, state or federal government seeks to pass that may potentially infringe on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny or any type of balance test. And the question to be answered is “does the proposed law in any way infringe?” It is not for the government to decide what form or type of weapon will best suit a citizen’s need to defend him or herself, but for the citizen alone to determine.

        • They can…they could…but WILL they? It’ll take more than one ruling; the opposition is persistent. This is going to be just like Roe v. Wade, slapping down contrary court decisions for decades.

          If the court has the stomach for it, that is. Maybe it will if Trump’s SC picks turn out to be as good as we hope. And it likely will if he gets to pick more. That’s the single most practical reason to support his re-election. (Keeping the Democrats’ current crop of crazies and poseurs out of the White House would be icing on a delicious cake.)

    • I don’t think you have to be a “constitutional attorney” (of which you’d have a hard time making a lot of money if you focused exclusively on non civil rights violations (14))

      a former editor of the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal and has been

      admitted to the US Supreme Court Bar.

      She is Communications Director for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners and the New Jersey ambassador for the DC Project.

      • “I don’t think you have to be a “constitutional attorney” …”

        Interesting point. Judges need not be expert in constitutional law to decide cases centered in the constitution. Yet, it is unlikely that an attorney not expert in constitutional law could fashion a successful case arguing constitutional law.

    • Umm . . . Sam? Can I call you Sam??

      From her bio AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE:

      ” . . . former editor of the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal and has been admitted to the US Supreme Court Bar.”

      Reading is Fundamental.

      • You are correct. I did not note the bio.

        However, the credential is only incidental to the point that courts lack effective power to enforce (as in “defend”) their rulings. Which makes the author’s argument all the more curious.

        A constitutional law expert should know that courts cannot “defend” their rulings. Granted, one may claim that making similar rulings in similar cases is “defending” a prior decision, but it is mere wordsmithing.

        A constitutional law expert should know that courts cannot take proactive measures to “defend” their rulings. Courts can only rule on cases before them. The SC does not have power to issue edicts demanding compliance with it decisions already rendered. The SC cannot remove lower court judges who refuse to implement SC rulings.

        A constitutional law expert should know better than to use a word such as “defend” to blame courts for not achieving desired outcomes. Even if the SC declares that the Second Amendment is absolute, and all regulations of firearms is unconstitutional, the SC cannot “defend” that ruling.

    • “The fault, dear Brutus, in not in our stars, but in ourselves….”

      I have to agree with this sentiment. Why gun grabbers shit on our heads more and more? Because WE let them. Every new infringement that doesn’t meet with swift and harsh personal repercussions for its author just paves the way for next, more onerous infringements.

      We are too nice and law abiding to a fault. We sue, spending lots of money and effort, wait for years for the court system to defend our fundamental human rights, only to be rejected time and time again, which only emboldens the antis.

      Unwillingness of most judges and justices to strongly enforce the 2A shouldn’t surprise anybody. Judiciary is a part of the government, what’s in it for them to let the population keep and bear arms?

      We can’t rely on them. It’s up to US to defend our fundamental human rights if we want to keep them and even gain back what we lost since 1930s. The best defense is a good offense. Politicians need to be trained so that a mere thought of any 2A infringement will make them jump away with revulsion. They must learn that gun grabbing has bad unintended consequences for one’s career.

  4. There is also Worman vs Healey, which we should hear about in the next 4-6 weeks at SCOTUS conference. That case will decide if (according to these judges) we have the right to AR-15’s and their variants, as well as standard capacity magazines.

    There are other cases percolating up that speak to whether the gov can require any type of license or permit. They can’t, but we will see what SCOTUS rules.

    • “There is also Worman vs Healey, which we should hear about in the next 4-6 weeks at SCOTUS conference. That case will decide if (according to these judges) we have the right to AR-15’s and their variants, as well as standard capacity magazines.”

      That getting or being denied cert. may indicate their appetite for some 2A respect, AKA Thomas-style.

      If granted, the Leftists will rightly shit bricks. If denied, it may simply mean they want to take a breather before addressing it in a subsequent term.

      But oh, boy, how they would freak. Kavanaugh’s earlier writing on AR-platform firearms will *haunt* them, where he wrote that banning a class of weapon in common use would be tantamount to banning a class of speech.

      But hey, maybe they only want to drop one sledgehammer 2A decision at a time. Stretch out the freedom a little bit for the pearl-clutchers…

    • Curious why you think a decision on Worman will come out in 4-6 weeks? Many have speculated that nothing new for 2A will come until NYSRPA is decided. In fact, I feel much better if nothing is taken until NYSRPA, because that would hint that NYSRPA will be a paradigm shift. If they take other cases, that would point to NYSRPA being a trivial decision of very limited scope.

  5. The U.S. Supreme Court spends its time arguing how and why human rights should be violated for the sake of the state and public safety. They are not on the people’s side.

    • Chief Sensor,

      Sometimes, your comments are way off the mark. At other times, your comments are startlingly insightful and accurate. This comment is startlingly insightful and accurate. Well done sir or ma’am.

  6. If you think any court in today’s version of America is about justice, you just woke up from a dream.
    The ATF has declared that if you are confused about whats between you legs(mental illness etc.) that’s OK.

    • The ATF changes to the form regarding “gender” is a reflection of their embracing fantasy land. If they add “non-binary” and allow a citizen to falsely self-identify, they may as well add “orc, goblin, dwarf, troll, elf, gnome and fairy” to the selections designating one’s race.

      Heck, while we’re on designations, my AR-15 self-identifies as a Latino cis gendered wireless personal defensive app, and as such is not subject to any ATF rules or regs.

      • Erik in AZ,

        I am gearing up for a huge fight with my local public school district over this “gender identity” garbage.

        I am going to shamelessly use your example of how someone can equally claim that they are an orc, goblin, elf, fairy, etc. to try and open their eyes to how arbitrary and twisted the notion is that someone can choose their “gender”.

        • They’ll kick you out of the meeting, just because you’re making fun of them. That’s worse than disagreeing with them. Better to call yourself a person of color. They can’t prove you’re not. They’re more interested in “saving face” if there’s a camera there. Good luck, I wish I had the guts to speak out when my kids were in school. My kids had to sing Hillary’s song “It Takes a Village” during the “winter holiday” concert.

  7. We do not know at this point what scotus decided regarding the NYC case. And Trump has remade the 9th circuit.

    I’ve said this before. Trump may not be rabidly pro gun. But he is pro business and his court picks have mostly been conservatives. Conservatives tend to favor business and guns.

    He will have a second term and he is royally pissed at the left. Hopefully Kavanaugh is also harboring a grudge.

    • Kavanaugh isn’t going to issue a decision on the basis of a grudge. He will issue his decisions on the the basis of the constitution. That doesn’t mean that having a grudge won’t make it feel better doing so.

      • He said he makes decisions off previous rulings and opinions. He is not pro Bill of Rights. Look back at what he did during Bush.

        • “He said he makes decisions off previous rulings and opinions.”

          History, tradition, precedent; circular reasoning at its best.

        • “History, tradition, precedent; circular reasoning at its best.”

          That’s OK, history and tradition in favor of semi-auto rifles and large magazines is as clear as it gets… 🙂

          • “That’s OK, history and tradition in favor of semi-auto rifles…”

            History, tradition and precedent are not 100% in favor of unrestricted firearm ownership.

            The NFA is history, tradition and precedent, as is FOPA,

            Being skeptical of government (SC is part of government) has proven prudent over my lifetime.

        • “…The NFA is history, tradition and precedent,…”

          Correct. That’s how we get the machine-gun registry re-opened, like it was for so many years without problems.

          Do you like your logic bent, twisted, or deep-fried like nasty (yet delicious!) Texas state fair food? 🙂

          • “That’s how we get the machine-gun registry re-opened,…”

            Not following your thought here. NFA and FOPA are legislation. Can be overturned by new legislation. The “history, tradition and precedent” argue that government can decide when and if certain restrictions on 2A are permissible. Not seeing an opening for re-opening. The FOPA is restrictive, not permissive. That government can restrict does not seem to also mean that a restriction must be reciprocal. The one does not justify the other.

            At the core of NFA and FOPA is whether government has a “compelling interest”, public safety, permitting the legislation to stand. As noted about red flag orders, (no judge wants to be accused of making an unnecessary mistake), can’t see SC justices taking the risk that overturning NFA and FOPA will lead to automatic gunfire in the streets.

        • “Not seeing an opening for re-opening.”

          As I understand it, the 1934 (?) NFA legislation has built-into it an option to temporarily re-open the registry to allow for amnesty periods. That was last done in the late 60s, if memory serves.(Perhaps to allow Vietnam combat bring-back AK-47s to be registered?) With just the stroke of a pen, it can be re-opened… 🙂

          • “With just the stroke of a pen, it can be re-opened…”

            You may be correct.

            I was a bit cryptic. The full thinking was the court’s cannot force re-opening, and the political winds of time would not permit a politician to move to re-open, because the mood of the public (and the press) would forever trash that politicians legacy as a result of the first death or injury caused by someone who registered a gun during an “open period”.

    • “He will have a second term and he is royally pissed at the left. Hopefully Kavanaugh is also harboring a grudge.”
      I see DJT signing EOs on guns just to infuriate them. They forget he has a pen and phone and he likes to sign his name. The left can be very short sighted and on Don they have been positively myopic as hell. He’s not nearly as dumb as they think he is and he’s pretty ruthless. You don’t do business in NYC for 39 years without knowing how to hurt people.

      • If you think the Don gives a single wet sh*t about your guns or those that belong to anyone else there is more than one myopic individual in this discussion….

        • I have absolutely zero doubt that he’d use firearms as a tool to give the finger to the other side, but ONLY if they made it a priority. I dunno if you’ve noticed, but it’s been very low on their list which means he gives zero f*cks.

          Your messiah won’t save you on this one so long as the dems keep guns out of the national conversation.

        • matt. Have you been in a coma? The dems are talking about nothing but guns. And running Trump out of office.

      • “I see DJT signing EOs on guns just to infuriate them. They forget he has a pen and phone and he likes to sign his name.”

        He can re-open the select-fire registry with an amnesty period with the stroke of a pen.

        If he does, however, the Leftists will likely run to a federal judge to halt it. And I suppose we could counter with a judge ruling the way we want.

        What would happen in that case? Certain districts can open the registry, and some may not?

        • He could create an open amnesty period for all registry items, from full auto to imports to suppressors. Or just direct ATF not to enforce the registry or the tax. Or get even more creative. Imagine the possibilities!

          If multiple courts rule multiple ways, Trump just says, “we will execute what the 5th circuit says, and ignore the 9th.” Until SCOTUS makes a final call.

    • Trump changed the law in Puerto Rico. That a BIG plus for everyone living there. Of course, the media was pretty silent on that one.

  8. Unless and until someone goes to jail for violating Heller they are going to hit on that little paragraph allowing what they think are reasonable restrictions right up to and including disarming.

    Imagine if the invented right to abort children was dealt with this way. If 25 states said eff it, we are going to ignore the courts on abortion. I imagine we’d have far few abortions and maybe even a reconsideration of the decision a few years later.

  9. It will end when the second American revolution begins,if all the other boxes fail then there is the cartridge box.

  10. Nope. Looking to the courts to protect rights is a fools errand. The left has been looking to the courts to make up or protect legitimate rights for decades. Thats not the way the courts should be used and its a dangerous game to play. Courts can just as easily take away your rights. If the 5-4 Heller decision went the other way, we still have our gun rights just not legally.

  11. More proof that what I have been saying is all too true. Gun ownership threatens the power mad people on the courts both Democrats and Republicans. The courts never met a gun ban law they did not bless.

    • I dunno about all true… I largely only skim your posts because I think you’re largely an idiot; despite the fact that I lean left of many here on many topics.

      That said neither D nor R is a friend to gun rights and the court has a remarkably bad track record on rulings in regards to firearms.

    • “The courts never met a gun ban law they did not bless.”

      Objectively untrue. The Heller and McDonald rulings do exist and did *not* bless the gun ban laws they overturned, your totalitarian fever dreams notwithstanding.

      Does the gentry (the moneyed and credentialed elite) in the US of A have an unquenchable hard-on for civilian disarmament? Yes, of course, because armed commoners upset their sense of entitlement and question the inevitability of their control. And because deep down, they’re starting to suspect that they’ve really, royally fucked up the system that feeds them and the commoners neither respect nor believe them anymore.

      • The courts and the State legislatures have totally ignored the Heller decision and ditto for the Scalia decision that was more anti gun than pro gun.

        • “The courts and the State legislatures have totally ignored the Heller decision…”

          So, it was San Fran’s, NYC and Chicago’s respect of the 2A that made them suddenly start issuing handgun permits for the home in those cities?

          Any proper goose-stepping, self-respecting ‘Progressive’ city government would have told SCOTUS right where they can shove the Heller and McDonald decisions, because Progressives know what’s best for their peons! 😉

      • In fairness, Ing, those rulings have been largely ignored below the federal level and challenges to newer laws have mostly been brushed off by SCOTUS. I don’t like it any better than you do but Vlad is uncharacteristically accurate on this one; the courts lean toward more regulation as opposed to less.

  12. The historical illiterate and the marginally interested will be getting lessons about the Constitution in general and why the founders wrote the Second in a demonstration of its utility.

  13. An inconvenient truth: the Constitution can only be enforced by militia. Expecting the government to enforce the law that limits the government is naive.

  14. I think Sam pretty well nails this one up top. We’re dealing with people who respect one thing that might be described with various words. Power, Force, Capacity, Influence… pick your poison.

    Stalin was instructive on this mentality.

    When cautioned by Churchill to respect the views of the Vatican Stalin is said to have replied “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”.

  15. People always talk about the ballot box, jury box, cartridge box etc but as much preaching as we hear about the latter, the former is where the failure lies. Look at the voter turnout in rural (i.e. gunowning) parts of Virginia in the last election. And especially look at the turnouts in state elections, rather than just the presidential ones.

    It just confuses me how people think a revolution is going to start over gun rights when gun-owners can’t even be bothered to go vote when it’s rainy. I’m not suggesting that is the case for people here who tend to be more active on 2nd Amendment issues, but just that gun owners as a whole are not a particularly good voting block. There’s a reason they get ignored after every election…

    • Fair point. While there are a lot of gun owners in the US, there are far fewer gun people. Among gun owners, I would imagine people like the community here at TTAG (dedicated, passionate, informed people who view gun ownership as a civil rights issue) are unfortunately a pretty significant minority. That seems to be changing with the new generation of gun owners who really like their ARs and Glocks (and who seem to be more politically engaged given how hard politicians are demonizing them), but it’s a slow process

  16. The ultimate question is this: At what point is INFRINGEMENT understood as INFRINGEMENT? Until those who want to take away our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS understand this; Until those who want to take away our PROPERTY understand this; Until those who want to take away our LIBERTY and SECURITY in the name of DEMOCRACY and SAFETY understand and ACCEPT this, we will be forever at odds and forever divided. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the beginning and the end of the conversation. Don’t like it? Cool story, bro. Love it or leave it. This is America. And I, for one, am getting really fucking tired of this stupid fucking bullshit.

    • There are only two absolute rights in this country: 13th Amendment; Roe v. Wade. Everything else is contingent on compelling government interest, and reasonable restrictions.

        • “So please tell me then.. what exactly is a ‘reasonable’ infringement?”

          Whatever the courts permit.

        • “Whatever the courts permit.”

          Simple. Elegant. Excellent. And yet the courts can get it wrong. Ask me how much faith I have in the 4th or 9th Circuit to tell me what is reasonable. I know we are a nation of laws – but we are also a nation of free men – presumably. No court, nor any man, can tell me I need permission as a sovereign human being to exercise rights which do not come from any court or any man. The Bill of Rights enumerates these basic principles as the final backstop to all else. Courts [as well as legislatures] are made up of individuals -who can be partisan-who can be compromised & corrupted-who can get it wrong. I, myself, am a free individual. Therefore, as much as I can not tell anyone what is reasonable for them, nor can anyone tell me what is reasonable for me. The best I/we have to go on is the language of our founding documents as understood by the common man in the common tongue. At the core of the founding fathers’ philosophy is this: that individual liberty supersedes the dictates of the State. When the State [and yes, that also means the courts] overstep what can be commonly construed as ‘reasonable’ it is incumbent upon us [a collective of free men] to default to the original documents and act accordingly. In summation: I will attach a grenade launcher to my automatic AK if I damn well fucking feel like it.

          And bytheway, I will ALWAYS trust the Sheriff I know versus the Judge I don’t know.

          • “And bytheway, I will ALWAYS trust the Sheriff I know versus the Judge I don’t know.”

            Not recommending any pathway, just noting that “reasonable restrictions” are in the power of the courts, not needing the approval of individuals. One must deal with that as one chooses.

      • “What constitutes infringement? Has case law ever defined this?”

        I think the judicial theory applied is something along the lines of, “…I know it when i see it.”

  17. why would the supreme court defend a constitutional right that they feel should not exist and whose proponents be exterminated? The courts in America hate guns, hate gun owners and want all guns banned, confiscated by force while exterminating the entire gun owning population of the United States. The supreme court in its current configuration thinks that way too. It’s just some of those justices still take their oath seriously.

    The courts are actually worse than the Democrats in this regard. Because when the Democrats make gun ownership illegal and punishable by execution without trial the courts will not stop it. The courts will cheer them on. When the government starts using the full force of the government and military murdering their own citizens by themillions the courts will support it. When the government starts losing physical bodies to enforce that for obvious reasons and they resort to using nuclear weapons Making that body count in the hundreds of millions the courts will also support that.

    Now what I said was insane. However what should scare most people is there’s a small part of you that agrees with me.

  18. I would suggest to the SC that they defend and reinforce their Heller and McDonald rulings before the people decide that their only option for defending the BOR is to apply heated tar and feathers (or worse a rope) to the jackass politicians pushing violations of the rights of the people. Back the people into a corner and give them no other choice, they will reach for the final box.

  19. The Robes Rule Supreme . The high priest of the Mayans . ,,,,, Studying nature most of my life I believe Ants and Bee”s are the only ones who’ve actually figured out what it takes to form the perfect society. .

  20. The problem with Heller is that it allowed lower courts to nitpick.
    Using precedent and case law allows word games and use of other precedent to over turn Heller without going to SCOTUS.

    The proper decision should have been a simple once sentence statement.

    “The right shall not be infringed.”

  21. And a black man with a pen (Clarence Thomas doesn’t need the phone) can stop a revolution with just two words. Strict Scrutiny.

    Strict scrutiny is like saying “shall not be infringed” twice.

  22. SCOTUS is totally OWNED. The people with the money make the laws and rules. Just like all the other govmt entities where special interest groups dictate policy. No difference. If SCOTUS wasnt owned, something would have been done a long time ago. NOTHING has been done and NOTHING will be done.

    Did people ever ask why?

    Has anyone ever looked at the bios of these judges. Its laughable at best, they are not 2nd amendment fans and that includes the so-called conservative ones.

    Heck they create new rights out of thin air. Just like in some states where the judges have decided that a man can be a woman and vice versa and affordable housing is a right.

    SCOTUS is no one’s friend except to the elite that bought them.

  23. As I try to grasp the consequences of the Virginia Conundrum, I am skeptical of the trust and reliance the participants maintain upon our judiciary.
    Our Supreme Court and Appellate judgeships are life time political appointees who are owned by our corrupted two party system. How are they to be trusted as the final arbiters in defense of our rights?
    They are specifically groomed and selected for their political affiliation, beliefs, and opinions that protect the elites in the government establishment.
    Our lower, or subordinate court systems are comprised and dependent upon the electoral process, and are owned by their financial contributors. They can not be trusted in the arbitrary defense of our rights.
    These judges are also political appointees. They are candidates who are selected according to the local predominant political elites who are in controll of thier presiding districts.
    The state, county and local jurisdictions are party (Republican or Democrat) controlled.
    The fucking Democrats and Republicans are the two wings of the same bird.
    Consequently, we do not have a judicial system that equitably applies the administration justice. We have a legal system that is designed to protect the elites.
    When the laws protect one class of society (the elite) and are applied as a weapon, and enforced (with extreme cruelty) to punish another class of society (us in fly over country) or a certain individual, we are no longer equal participants in the equitable administration of justice.
    We have devolved from a federally constituted republic into a tyrannical socialist police state. When laws become weapons, justice is the first casualty.

  24. I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Founders, the DofI and the Constitution. We need to insist on adherence to the Constitution by ALL of our so-called ‘public servants’, elected or appointed. Having said that, the reality is that ALL laws are enforced (which implies the inherent situational interpretation of said law) by humans. And we all know how that works out.

    I was a major Scalia fan . . . until he wrote that absolute piece of dreck that was the Heller decision – particularly those damn footnotes. And then my blood pressure went down, I had a couple of applications of ethanol to self-medicate, and realized what it was REALLY all about.

    Heller was a 5-4 decision, and Scalia and co. had to deal with the traitorous s***heel Kennedy, who never met a provision of the Constitution he wasn’t willing to p*** all over, just to be part of the ‘cool kids’. Yes, his opinion in Heller was a mess. Trust me, it was ONLY as much of a mess as it needed to be to buy Kennedy’s vote. We don’t have that problem, anymore.

    Thought experiment: If, as most of us assume, DJT gets re-elected, and the Leftists finally have to stop trying to re-animate the corpse of Zombie RBG, and Trump appoints, and Cocaine Mitch confirms, another originalist Justice. There is now a relatively solid, reliable group of four Justices who will vote to uphold the actual Constitution (I am deliberately excluding Roberts, as that traitorous f***wad would sell his grandmother to get a nice writeup in the NYT). Once Zombie RBG goes to her well-deserved reward (say ‘hi’ to Suleimani, Ruth, you dim bint), and DJT and Mitch get another seat, Roberts will fall in line – he’d rather be on the winning side.

    NOW a decision could be issued, without watering s*** down, saying “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ did you idjits not understand???”. And, admittedly reluctantly, the Federal courts will mostly follow along. Oh, there will be lots of efforts by remaining Clinton, Bush and Obama appointees to parse and nitpick and work around ANY decision the SCOTUS renders that they don’t like, but it will only take overturning a couple of those to put an end to that s***.

    Three decisions, done right, from SCOTUS would put paid to all this unconstitutional nonsense, but I suspect that the reason that SCOTUS has NOT issued the first, and most important, of those decisions is that . . . neither side felt comfortable that they would get the result they wanted (with that useless s***bag, Roberts, playing the role of Anthony Kennedy), so none of them was willing to take the chance.

    Trust me, when the actual, real originalists feel they have a solid majority, and won’t have to water down their ruling to buy that fifth vote, they will come down hard.

    Of course, if something goes screwy and DJT doesn’t get re-elected, or if the libs manage to keep Zombie RBG pretending to life (although, keep an eye on the ‘wise Latina’ – diabetes ain’t no joke, and it contributes mightily to an early demise), all bets are off.

  25. SCOTUS hasn’t backed up its own 2A decisions. This never would have happened if John Roberts was still alive.

    Do I really need a /sarc tag?

  26. The one thing we law abiding gun owners can do to keep our 2nd Amendment Rights is to make sure DJT stays in office for four more years. He can fill our courts with people that love our country and support our Constitution, especially our 2nd Amendment. Four more years for President Trump will scare the pants off of gun hating radical Socialist / Communist Democrats. He can throw a monkey wrench into their gun confiscation dreams. He can stop the gun grabbers Sugar Daddy’s Blumbug from buying the Presidency and keep the sugar in our drinks. Can you believe it? A person that takes sugar out of drinks running for Democrat President. Please, do not stay home next election. President Trump is crucial for gun owners and America.

  27. Actually that’s not so. The federal government (federal courts) isn’t the solution to the government, State or federal, violating the Rights of the People. It’s the People who haven’t stopped the government(s) from infringing on their Inherent Right to keep and bear arms, or even other Rights.
    The courts can only give an opinion, which have no force to enforce.
    Second, why rely on the federal government to determine the limits of its own powers?
    Third, the federal government isn’t the authority to determine the meaning of the uS Constitution when it’s subject to it and not party to it. The federal government being the creation under the compact of the uS Constitution.

    We also do not have a “Second Amendment Right” or even any “Constitutional Rights” as our Rights are not given to us by the document. We have Inherent or Natural Rights. To say we have “Second Amendment” or “Constitutional” Rights, is to give credence to the ability of Leftists to try and legislate away our Rights.

  28. “In 2014, the Court denied the petition in a New Jersey case asking the critical question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies outside the home.”

    There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits any of them to the home. How could militias fight against a tyrannical government if their guns had to stay home? Does the First Amendment only apply inside the home? The absurdity of such nonsense is very clear.

    • In states like New Jersey, people are arrested and jailed for carrying firearms outside the home.

Comments are closed.