The Court selects what it will hear. It grants or denies petitions for writs of certiorari at its discretion. And although Supreme Court Rule 10 pretends to supply a neutral architecture for that discretion, the reality is that Rule 10 functions as a judicial escape hatch—a convenient justification for declining the very cases that demand intervention. In no domain is this more destructive than in Second Amendment litigation. [More]
As we’ve noted many times before, real recognition of the right to keep and bear arms won’t happen unless there’s a credible “or else” backing up the demand.
It’s time to accept that the US supreme court is illegitimate and must be replaced [More]
Imagine what a state reconstituted in the image of what these Marxist ivory tower academics propose would do to you for not obeying its disarmament diktats.
This is a heck of a case. Watch this, because he does a good job explaining Gardner v Maryland, where a traveler forced to defend herself got hosed by Maryland violence monopolists..
I want to know why my A-rated Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost did not join in with the other state AGs, and why my two A-rated Republican Senators, John Husted and Bernie Moreno, didn’t join in with Ted Cruz and all those other senators. I think I’ll ask them.
Also, in the briefs I’ve seen so far, there’s one case that’s not cited, and not being a lawyer that seems more than curious to me as it has direct bearing because it was decided by the Supreme Court.
In the infamous Dred Scott decision, SCOTUS made one admission that showed what the court’s thinking was on this exact issue when it rationalized:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT. [Emphasis added]
Educate a poor non-mouthpiece layman here who holds the simple notion that “shall not be infringed” means what it says and is jaded enough to believe the gun-grabbers understand that, too. Why isn’t anyone bringing up a part of Scott v Sandford that would survive where the rest of the decision would fall?
As noted many times before, those who have it won’t cede real power unless there’s a credible “or else” attached to the demand. And they’re counting on most of us having too much to lose to jump out of the heating pot.
SUPREME COURT Slams AR15 Case 2026 Gun Rights Status Check [Watch]
More balking around the edges when the true issue is invalidating NFA and all infringements, which won’t happen unless there’s a credible “or else” backing up the demand.
There were 41 cases dealing with Second Amendment issues before the United States Supreme Court last Friday for conference. As it turns out, almost all of those cases are still alive. [Watch]
<YAWN>
At least the illegal alien isn’t considered part of “the people.”
It’s conference day today at the Supreme Court and instead of going live Monday morning to tell you all the bad news, we decided to give it to you ahead of time. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses all 41 2A cases before SCOTUS on conference today so that you can understand the blood bath that will be Monday’s orders list. [Watch]
As noted before, all SCOTUS has to do to let bad law stand is…nothing, and real change won’t happen unless there’s a credible “or else” attached to the demands.
Upholding Hawaii’s disarmament edict “fails every aspect of the analytical framework established by Bruen,” Beck and Petitioner Co-Counsel Mark W. Pennack argue. [More]
It’s difficult to conceive how the same court that gave us Bruen could agree that the Founders would have been cool with ubiquitous infringements.
This Supreme Court has unexpectedly made another move on Duncan v. Bonta, the mag ban challenge out of California. This twist now erases our chance to see a conference on November 21st and puts the case in limbo. [Watch]
As repeatedly noted, all SCOTUS has to do to let bad law stand is… nothing.
Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. [More]
That this is even in question shows how far the Republic has degraded from the clear intent understood by the founders as a condition for ratification.
That the big worry now is if SCOTUS will even hear it, and if so, how it will rule, tells us more.
Viramontes’s criticism of Bevis on this point carries little weight, given Heller’s holding that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes[.]” Id. at 625. Heller did not hold, as Viramontes seems to imply, that military-style weapons are protected “arms” because military action by civilians is lawful. Instead, Heller characterized self-defense as the “core lawful purpose” of firearm use. 554 U.S. at 630. [More]
Funny, how a common prohibitionist argument is that 2A advocates ignore the first 13 words, and here it is they’re doing just that in their legal argument.
In any case, the amendment says “arms.” And as for the contention that its ban “finds support in this nation’s history and tradition,” tell that to Tench Coxe.
But as shown, the Government’s efforts to defend the panel’s decision are all unpersuasive. And the starkness of the Seventh Circuit’s departure from this Court’s precedent— combined with the peculiar and anomalous nature of the restrictions on short-barreled rifles at issue—in fact make this case a particularly suitable vehicle for resolving one or more of these fundamental methodological questions. [More]
So, why is “pro-gun” Pam Bondi’s Justice Department arguing otherwise?
Justices agree to review federal law banning drug users from possessing guns [More]
I see the Trump/Bondi DOJ is selectively defending infringements again.
Could there be a less sympathetic defendant than “a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the guns-and-drugs law after the FBI found a 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine at his family home” ?
Am I wrong to suspect a way to erode the text, history, and tradition standard and guarantee bad precedent with a case centered on what would have been pretty much an anachronism at the time of the founding?
On Friday we celebrated DOJ Civil Rights filing an amicus brief with SCOTUS on Wolford v Lopez, the case out of Hawaii where there is a circuit split on “whether private property no carry default violates the Second Amendment.”
That’s the case where Alan Beck is one of the attorneys for petitioners.
Stephen Stamboulieh, who has worked with Alan on numerous efforts, as well as represented me, shares his thoughts:
