Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Supreme Court’s Inaction Fails Gun Owners Again

Once again the faith that some gun owners hold in the US Supreme Court to do the right thing in regards to the 2nd Amendment was proven baseless.

Last week the Supreme Court decided NOT to rule on the ever expansive infringements on the right to keep AND bear arms in the state of New Jersey.  But refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has allowed to stand a ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that states the right to bear arms outside of the home can be limited to the whims and discretion of an issuing authority.

Basically, if the issuing authority in May-Issue states within the jurisdiction of the 3rd Circuit don’t want to give you a license to carry a firearm they have NO obligation to do so.  All they have to do is claim you don’t deserve one.

How this ruling in anyway gels with Heller v DC, MacDonald v Chicago or…I don’t know…THE SECOND AMENDMENT is beyond me.

The 2nd Amendment was written for the VERY PURPOSE of ensuring that such bureaucratic tyranny would not be allowed.  Yet time and again, New Jersey and states of their ilk have continually attacked the rights of the law abiding citizens and have repeatedly undermined the right that “shall not be infringed.”

And where is the Supreme Court in all of this?  On the sidelines…giving it a pass.  Daily, people in New Jersey and other such states are having their civil rights blatantly and repeatedly violated.

People like John Drake of Sussex County who wanted a carry permit because his job is restocking ATM machines.  You know…WITH CASH…lots and lots of cash.

Yet in a job that would lead any normal and rational person to understand that a greater risk is present for him than others because of his occupation, you would think it would be a no brainer that he would be given a permit in order to protect himself.

But no, Drake was denied a permit and thus was one of the plaintiffs in the case charging that the discretionary practices of issuing permits in the state of New Jersey was unconstitutional.  Among other plaintiffs: a reserve sheriff’s deputy, a civilian FBI employee and a victim of an interstate kidnapping.  Looking at this list it is easy to see that no one unless connected with the corrupt issuing authority was going to get a permit.

Yet the Supremes do not dare wade into the matter and support the Constitution in this matter?  So much for hoping on the rule of law to carry the day.

Once again, the US Supreme Court, through its cowardly inaction has failed in its duty and in doing so has failed America.


Enhanced by Zemanta

  • A much more consequential issue is why 9 INDIVIDUALS are deciding such issues for 317 MILLION PEOPLE to begin with:

    “…Because this is a “right” codified by the United States Constitutional Republic and thereby brought under its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Republic can divest its citizens of this right – something it has been doing incrementally for some time. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., the Supreme Court decided, five to four, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and bear firearms. Although gun owners hailed Heller a victory, this battle (which is far from over) concerning the constitutional right to bear arms has diverted our attention from the larger and more consequential battle.

    “Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise. Many Americans who celebrated Heller overlooked the fact that it can – and likely will – be overturned by a future court, just as its decision overturned United States v. Miller,
    307 U.S. 174, rendered in 1939. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings….”

    For more, see online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

    • GRAMPA

      This right is unalienable. The Constitution protects and defends our rights it does not regulate them. Because the purpose of the constitution was to innumerate the powers of government not people it cannot be used to restrict a citizens rights. The erosion of the second amendment is not restricting the rights of people it is expanding the powers of government. When the courts say that we no longer have that right we then put the part of our constitution into play that states that when government becomes oppressive we have the right to dissolve it I believe that it will get ugly fast for too many people fall thru life in an entertainment fog and will wake up some morning living in a socialist state.

      • Grampa, thank you for responding.

        If rights are unalienable then they would have to come for God. However, there are two inherent problems with the idea of God-given Constitutional rights:

        1) Except as PERHAPS the Paper’s timekeeper in Article 7, the Constitution knows nothing of God.
        2) God and His Word knows nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with non-optional, God-expected responsibilities.

        We were sold down the river when the framers replaced God-expected responsibilities with Enlightenment optional rights. Please consider the much more potent responsibility in the following, as depicted by the Apostle Paul:

        “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

        You might find our blog article “America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights” helpful. You can find at

        • GRAMPA

          If our rights com from our constitution from where does it get its authority? It comes from the people. A persons rights are inherent from birth. if one wishes that they come from god that is their right. A piece of paper can never give rights. our government grants civil rights and changes them when it suits them. Unalienable rights cannot be transferred , signed away or removed by any legislation. This includes courts that also get their power from the people.

          • Richard Tallent Jr.

            OK question? Let’s say a young man made a mistake and was handed a felony. According to mans law he no longer has the right to defend eather himself or his wife and kids. So what is he supposed to do? Never messed up before or sense and yet with one stroke of pen denied that supposedly unable right. So what does he Do?

          • GRAMPA

            At this point nothing but break the law which is what I would do were my family is in danger. This is why we have the jury and while the courts provide the means to apply the law it is up to the jury to provide the justice. Our public however is sadly lacking at the responsibilities of the jury. Its job is to judge the law to see if it applies as well as guilt of the accused. Would you vote to convict a man who is in violation of the laws to protect his family? When laws are unjust the people must not stop untill laws are changed. It can be done.
            Good question It is good to see a thinker. This country needs more.

          • mjnellett

            Get his wife trained and certified, and his children when they are old enough. Contact the various gun rights organizations about what happened and ask for help in restoring his rights.

    • mjnellett

      Very well said Ted.

  • Manuel510

    This article is a bit misleading. Drake was a conceal carry case and the SC said in Heller V DC that conceal carry can be limited and that open carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. How about these “gun rights” groups fight for open carry. Would you believe me if I tild you that the NRA said in Peruta V San Diego that states can ban open carry and argued to uphold CAs gun free school zones?

    • mjnellett

      The Second Amendment is the ONLY written law that I care about concerning guns. If the progressive gun grabbers want to change the Constitution, there is a way described in our Constitution of how to do it. As for the cowards on the “Supreme Court”; if they do not want to do the job that they are paid for then they should be impeached and removed from office.

Send this to friend