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

A Sobering Look At Recent SCOTUS “Wins” For The 2nd Amendment

For those who following the happenings of the 2nd Amendment on the judicial level you are no doubt aware of recent cases since 2000 that have ostensibly empowered the right to keep and bear arms.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that those cases are the be all end all that they could have been.

Alan Gura, the lead litigator who won both Heller v DC and MacDonald v Chicago poured some water on the notion that those were as big of victories as first believed.

A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

Optional precedents.  It’s disheartening to realize that Gura is exactly right.  Since both of those cases, the appellate courts have gone out of their ways to diminish their import and to work around them in order to try and legally justify gun control where it shouldn’t be allowed to exist.

Gura also points out that “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

In this too, he is correct.  During both of the aforementioned cases, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court had the ability to lay the smack down and finally encase the 2nd Amendment with the precedent of “shall not infringe.”  For some reason, it seems that the government needs to be smacked upside the head with that “shall not infringe” part again because that is all they seem to be doing for the past century and a half or so.

But no, the conservatives on the bench left enough wiggle room, enough exceptions and enough gray area in both of those cases that lower courts and legislators can continually undermine the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.  And while governments have millions to defend their unconstitutional laws.  John Q Patriot doesn’t have an endless war chest to fund long running litigation.

So yes, until there are enough liberty minded justices on the Supreme Court to state the the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed AT ALL, we continue the fight for our freedom.

Now, in regards to this upcoming election, Trump might be a toss up when it comes to nominating judges, but I know for a fact that a Hillary Presidency will do all in its power to strike the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

Food for thought.  Heller and MacDonald wasn’t the end…hell it wasn’t even the beginning.  The fight is just starting.  Keep your powder dry.


  • “…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

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Grundune

      Why should anyone believe you? You twist the Bible to make it support your anti-U.S. Constitution campaign. You won’t tell us the motives for you treason so we’ll simply ignore another America hating idiot.

    • Grundune

      Kingdom Ambassador is misinformed about the U.S. Constitution and Mormons. And he refuses to to accept the truth about both. Mormons declare that Christ is the son of God and was sent to redeem the world. Mormons pray to our Father who art in heaven, as Jesus Christ teaches us in the Bible and they do it in the name of Jesus Christ. Sounds like Christianity to me.

      Mormons generally believe that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were inspired by God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is founded on revelation
      from God to His prophets on the earth today, NOT the success or failure of the U.S. Constitution. The Mormon church does not demand that the U.S. Constitution be defended. That’s another Weiland deception.

      Ted R. Weiland keeps repeating his false information even though he has been repeatedly told to the truth.

      Grundune exposes Kingdom Ambassador aka Ted R. Weiland because of Grundune’s service in the U.S. Army where he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Weiland twists the meaning of the words of the U.S. Constitution and then proclaims it seditious to the Bible. This deception irritates Grundune and prompts him to expose the traitor.

      Weiland has waged his campaign with the obvious intent of turning public opinion against the Constitution. He will not reveal his motives for wanting to destroy a document that has afforded generations of Americans unprecedented freedom and liberty.

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Enjoying the show yet?

Send this to friend