Photo Courtesy of Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

On January 13, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear two Second Amendment-related cases, the first being a challenge to Delaware’s “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazine ban and the second covering Maryland handgun licensing requirements. As I intend to be critical of the High Court, I offer in fairness to concede that its previously issued rulings that should have been considered by state legislation, especially in the case of Delaware, but were not. I understand the monotony of redundant legal challenges the justices have already ruled upon. However, ignoring or turning away these redundancies fails to address the real issue: lawmakers’ refusal to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decisions. 

In the case of Delaware’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity greater than 17 rounds, it is clear that such an action intends to violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights in blatant protest of the 2022 standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The ban follows a wilful pattern by Democrats across the country who have adopted indifference as a tactic when they disagree with the high court, so much so that Chief Justice John Roberts warned against disregarding the Supreme Court’s rulings this past December.  

But what is a warning unbacked by consequence? Even in child psychology, it is understood that warnings themselves are not a consequence for misbehavior, serving as nothing more than empty words that can not withstand the resilience of even the most mild of tyrannical toddlers. While some may point out that the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of gun rights in major rulings over recent years, I think the real point is that these rulings have largely been reduced to symbolic gestures or even meaningless suggestions as they have not deterred Democrats from continuing to violate the same principles over and over.  

Interestingly enough, justices have not yet acted upon current appeals largely involving the same issues, one being Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban and the other Rhode Island’s prohibition of standard capacity magazines. 

In Delaware, the ban on “assault weapons” allows for those firearms already owned and classified under the law to be grandfathered in while the measure prohibiting magazine capacity is being applied to devices owned before the law took effect, unlawfully forcing the disposal or confiscation of constitutionally protected private property. 

Justices also rejected an appeal by Maryland Shall Issue and additional plaintiffs of a lower court ruling holding that the state’s licensing law is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Maryland’s 2013 law requires residents to obtain a qualification license through training, fingerprinting and background checks before they are permitted to purchase a handgun. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution uses plain text to recognize the inherent right of all American citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement. Challengers to the law cite the requirements as being too burdensome, delaying the process by “a month or longer,” begging the question as to whether a right delayed is truly a right.  

While conservatives remain hopeful about upcoming SCOTUS cases, such as Smith & Wesson’s defense against Mexico’s ridiculous lawsuit accusing the company of aiding the illegal trafficking of firearms to drug cartels, and even more hopeful for a resurgence of Second Amendment rights under the Trump administration, it remains to be seen whether the high court will remain a relevant authority. With Democrats figuratively spitting in justices’ faces and using their rulings as toilet paper, all without repercussion, it has become apparent that we are slipping further away from the rule of law and dangerously close to a system ruled by unchecked indifference.  Historically speaking, a nation’s answer to this question often leads to an undesirable yet unavoidable conflict. Just ask Thomas Jefferson. Hopefully, however, the country’s shift with the recent presidential election will also empower the Supreme Court to back its rulings with something more than empty warnings, as we already seem to be asking ourselves if the emperor is getting a little chilly.

43 COMMENTS

  1. Well. The libertarians think if you can’t tell what a woman is, then yes. The courts don’t matter. Since they believe skin color is more important. Than experience competence and wisdom.

    Which explains why california is burning to the ground now.

    And sexually orientation is more important than anything else.

    • Oh please libertarians know the difference between men and women they just recognize the rights of the mentally ill and retarded to play pretend. The problem is allowing such games to infringe on the rights of others. Also your “libertarians” are just commie infiltrators so stick with liberal it’s more accurate.

      • In the past there were libertarians at Cato who supported gun control. That was covered on TTAG. The problem with libertarians is they don’t believe in the responsibility and consequences that go with Liberty.

        Maybe they did believe it at one time. But not now.

        “The Cato Institute, the think tank that declares its vision “is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles,” greeted President Biden’s nomination of the judge with an observation that “There are plenty of reasons to celebrate Judge Jackson’s nomination—most importantly, the professional diversity she would bring to the Court.” 

        h
        ttps://www.thenation.com/article/politics/libertarians-ketanji-brown-jackson/

        • You keep referring to organizations that supposedly represent pro liberty individualists. You are not wrong that the organization is and has been rotten for decades but they never represented the views of any libertarian I know who are overwhelmingly republican.

    • “Which explains why california is burning to the ground now.”

      We should not instruct Californication on how to fix their problem.
      “Never interfere with the enemy while he is in the process of making a mistake.”
      – – Charles E. Mitchell, head of New York’s big National City bank

      • I really don’t care at all about these utopians. They kept Newscum and rejected Larry Elder. So let them live with the consequences. As I’ve said before. Every 30 or 40 years american cities need to be burned to the ground. So people will remember why they need to stay involved including to do research before you go to vote.

        Freedom is very very messy in california.

        But they do have the two most important things. Legal butt sex and drugs.

          • Chris T in KY loves to talk about legal butt sex.

            He’s almost worse than Debbie.

            Makes me wonder if he really wishes butt sex was made illegal because it was more fun back then?

  2. While annoying and slow it is a bit early to ask if the process is relevant when cases that have not been fully heard are the ones getting kicked back. With that said we are getting an increasing number of cases fully heard or nearly so coming up on appeal so we will see soon enough of the criticism is valid one way or another. As to how things should work well we shouldn’t have various flavors of commies elected and/or appointed to positions of power yet here we all are allowing that.

  3. Between milquetoast half rulings and a complete lack of any enforcement I’d say probably not.
    States, cities and individuals are just doing whatever they want to.

    • >>> “States, cities and individuals are just doing whatever they want to.”

      To summarize from a “too long; didn’t read” story:
      A former co-worker and immigrant [the actual kind, not the illegal alien kind] who had recently become a U.S. citizen stated to a bunch of us at the time, “The United States is a country founded on the rule of law, not of force. When people are no longer following the law, you no longer have a country.”

      • “When people are no longer following the law, you no longer have a country.”

        We have not been “One nation, indivisable…” since the mid 60s, but a collection of alien tribes, squabbling over everything. Rather than “liberty and justice for all”, our national motto has become, “In the end, there can be only one.”

  4. The drumbeat for Defining Gun Control by its History is crickets so as long as the spineless allow Gun owning bigots to rule the roost Gun Control enjoys standing…don’t like hearing the truth? gfy.

  5. This is How They Are Going to Interfere with President Trump’s Gun Agenda.

    “We discuss today a case that effectively killed ATF’s determination on Forced Reset Triggers. But what is happening now is not only desperate, but also reveals how those on the Progressive left will attempt to interfere with President Trump’s gun agenda. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the matter of NAGR v. Garland, a for now successful challenge to this rule, where 16 Attorneys General have now felt the need to intervene in place of the United States so that they can defend this rule. But in doing so, not only do they tip their hand as to their playbook for the next 4 years, but they also accidentally say the silent part out loud about the effectiveness of gun control laws.”

    h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly91kJDpDEI

    • While the Democrats are about to lose the presidency, registered Democrats and their fellow travelers are still rife through the government bureaucracies. They will delay and obfuscate any policies they don’t agree with. They will bide their time until the next Democrat presidency.

    • Gun agenda?
      Saint Trump doesn’t care about gun rights, he used the guns to get votes.
      His baby is golf courses.
      If there were a ban the golf courses movement then America would see the flaming enraged all pissed off and mad about side of Trump.
      Freedom is getting to vote for the lesser of two evils.
      Like a violin the system plays us well.

  6. Honestly I think that a big part of it is the threat of court packing. I think that the SC needs to call the Democrats’ bluff on it or have them do it and make them pay the political price.

    • Agree but SCOTUS seems fairly spineless lately. Rule ILL annoy gets everything taken away 2 years ago & I’ll care. Federal Marshals can have an effect as well as Trump however they ruled against him . We’ll see but I ain’t holding my breath. I’m locked n loaded irregardless🙄

      • Honestly the bigger effects will be removing the states’ authority to enforce such laws. Will still be expensive to fight in court if they try anyway but enough embarrassing losses paired with citizens and businesses ignoring not just unconstitutional but court ordered vacated law unconstitutional laws will reduce it to a petty nuisance where they can be sued personally for civil rights violations. This is idealistic but about the best we can do short to mid term without a lot of blood.

  7. Article is 180 degrees off base. The problem is not the SCOTUS, the problem is the President and the entire executive branch. SCOTUS says what the actual law is, and they’ve done a pretty good job of that recently. What good is a law if nobody enforces it? Useless. So is SCOTUS supposed to enforce it? Of course not. The executive branch is the enforcement arm of government. Congress writes it, SCOTUS interprets it when necessary, and Executive enforces it.

    The problem is the executive branch, which has had 12 years of Obama/Biden out of the last 16.

    And the REAL problem is the Chevron ruling, which hamstrung the courts and outsourced lawmaking to the Executive branch about 40 years ago. Congress used to write the laws, and the courts would interpret them, and the executive enforced them (or not, as the president decided who to put in charge). So the people who were supposed to enforce the law, where the ones who got to decide what the law “really” meant.

    Tyranny, anyone?

    In that one decision, the whole balance of power and “checks and balances” was destroyed. The courts were nutted. Congress’s role was misappropriated. And the Executive branch ruled supreme, basically. They “interpreted” Congressional bills any way they wanted, and the courts were bound (by The Court) to accept the executive branch’s position as the “true meaning” of the law, (so long as the agency’s interpretation was deemed “reasonable”.)

    Which gave us the tyranny of the IRS, the FBI, the ATF, the castration of the border enforcement, and on and on and on.

    The courts have been pretty good to us recently. But remember what President Andrew Jackson (reportedly) said after losing big-time at the SCOTUS: “”John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” That’s damn straight up unconstitutional action right there, refusing to enforce laws which is the entire purpose of the Executive branch! But Jackson was a Democrat (surprise, surprise).

    Point is: if we get an executive branch that believes in “law and order”, who understands the Executive branch’s role, then the SCOTUS decisions become binding. Perhaps Trump and his DOJ nominee Pam Bondi, if confirmed, will be the key components in once again enforcing the laws as written, as required by the overrule of Chevron Deference.

    And, perhaps Congress, having outsourced lawmaking to the executive branch’s agency interpretation, will now get back to the business of writing the laws properly. Seems that since Chevron Deference became a thing, Congress has gotten used to thinking their role is more about “investigations” and “censure” and “impeaching”, rather than the primary reason they exist is to write the **** laws properly in the first place.

    • What an odd way to demonstrate that you know nothing about the constitution. The concept of judicial review was invented out of thinner by the Supreme Court. They gave themselves powers in Marburry v Madison that the constitution doesn’t spell out. Jackson rightfully ignored them. The constitution never mentions that they’re to decide the constitutionality of laws and overturn the legislature and elected will of the people. This foolish shit is what allowed the leftist to creep in the power and turn the system against everyone anyway. Just a surely as you want to use the court against your opponents, your opponents will use the court against you. The best remedy is to make clear that the court doesn’t have the power to be used against anyone in such a manner

      • “The concept of judicial review was invented out of thinner by the Supreme Court.”

        You are, indeed, correct. However…..

        The issue remains, if the SC is not the arbiter of what is/is not constitutional, where does that authority clearly lay? The Constitution does not sort this out. 28U.S. Code, Sec. 1251 – Original Jurisdiction offers some guidance, but does not declare the SC to be the agency of sole authority of determining whether or not something is unconstitutional.

        Marbury v. Madison could have been short-stopped by Congress denying the SC jurisdiction to decide constitutional matters. Likely the then representatives of the people determined that such authority must be allocated to something (agency/dept), so Congress decided not to shut down the SC as the referee regarding constitutionality of laws and regulations.

        Rather than resolve the question, Congress took the easy way out.

  8. On some things it matters on other things particularly 2a rights not so much.
    I’ve always got in the back of my head it’s not such a smart idea to have 9 people deciding what is and what isn’t anyway.
    Get the wrong 9 in there and we could see all kind of hell.

    • The last SC action that mattered to the dems was the abortion “ruling” that merely interpreted that enforcement of it belonged with the states and there was no constitutionally enshrined right to it. It absolutely turned the tide in the 2022 elections, and was the last adverse ruling for the left that they have paid ANY attention to, so there is no reason that we should be paying attention to their shit either.

  9. Q: Do they matter?
    A: Yes, but not a lot.

    The simple answer is that the gun owning community has, to a large degree, given up on the government recognizing the laws that they are sworn to uphold. This is not a good thing, but its just simply the reality. Government is the enemy of an armed citizenry. This isn’t exactly new news, been that way before the USA was an itch in Thomas Jefferson’s pants, but its still just a sad well established reality.

    • The difference between then and now being the brave men and women of Jefferson’s day had the will, resolve and courage to do something about it. 91 days

  10. SCOTUS has no power to enforce its rulings. Past practice has been to obey the SCOTUS rulings even though we do not like them. That time is fading fast. I predict that Illinois will ignore the courts no matter how many times they lose. Illinois can and will simply close any FFL’s that they don’t like. There is no down side for the antis and a big plus for them in that we waste years and millions of dollars fighting them in a court system that fewer and fewer respect.

  11. if SCOTUS has ruled what is constitutional, then why can’t politicians passing unconstitutional laws be sued and loose their immunity when they know it won’t stand up to scrutiny ?
    ie , Illinois democrats and especially JB Prickter

    • “…why can’t politicians passing unconstitutional laws be sued…”

      Likely because both major political parties benefit.

  12. The 2nd Amendment is only twenty-seven words long for a reason. It is written in sixth grade level English, for a reason. It could not be reduced any more. Yet every time a 2nd Amendment case comes before the court they contort and twist themselves into all sorts of different shapes to change the meaning, and allow more elitist control.

  13. Ultimately, the Constitution is only worth something if politicians are willing to abide by it. These days, all three branches cherry pick what parts of the Constitution they’re willing to accept.
    Because of it, we’re living is a post-Constitutional country where actual Constitutional rights (like the 2A) are ignored and made up rights like abortion and gay/trans rights are treated like they’re iron clad.
    Besides, SCOTUS isn’t interested in protecting citizen’s Constitutional liberties, it’s only interested in preserving and protecting its own institutional influence.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here