FL Gun Owner Shoots, Kills Multiple Armed Intruders

H/T Bearing Arms.

This story would have had a different ending had this man been unarmed.

A Pasco County, Florida man who believes he was targeted after posting pictures of his gun collection online shot three men who broke into his home early Friday morning, killing two and injuring a third. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told reporters Friday afternoon that the victim was awake and alone in his home playing video games when he heard the sound of glass breaking coming from the rear of the home.

Grabbing his firearm, the homeowner went to check out the noise. As he was walking down a narrow hallway towards the rear of the home, he spotted an intruder armed with a gun of his own.

The homeowner shot and killed the first intruder and then took out the second one, who was right behind the first.

At some point, one of the three intruders managed to fire a gun. But, the homeowner was able to shoot him, too, before his gun jammed.

When the homeowner’s gun jammed, he went to grab another one. At that moment, the third intruder managed to get up and run away.  But, a neighbor stopped him in his tracks and held him at gunpoint outside until Pasco County deputies arrived.

Authorities say the 19-year-old surviving intruder was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive. He is being charged with two counts of second-degree homicide and one count of home invasion robbery.

I love the fact that the intruder was able to run outside, only to be stopped by another armed homeowner before he could get away. That’s some 2A teamwork right there.

According to WTSP-TV, the homeowner told authorities that he regularly shows off some of his firearms on his social media accounts, and authorities say they believe that this was “not a totally random situation,” though they haven’t confirmed if the homeowner was targeted due to his online presence.

As for the suspects, Sheriff Nocco says all three of them have lengthy criminal histories. 19-year old Jeremiah Tramel, the surviving suspect, has at least one battery charge on his record, and Nocco described the two deceased home invaders as having “very violent” criminal charges in the past.

Nocco also made clear that, “the victim in this case exercised his Second Amendment right to protect himself inside his home,” and said that under Florida law, the victim’s name would not be released to the public, in part because of concerns that he could be targeted for another attack by associates of the three home invaders. Heck, at this point you could even have a social justice mob try to come after this guy, though I think that would be a bad idea for reasons that should be self-evident.

I hope that Jeremiah Tramel is ultimately able to explain to investigators why the three men decided to arm up and rob the home of a self-described “gun enthusiast.” Did they simply think that because it was three against one they’d automatically come out on top? If so they were woefully mistaken. Sheriff Nocco described in his press briefing how the homeowner encountered the three men as he walked down a narrow hallway. All three were basically stacked in a row, and only one of them even got a shot off against the homeowner.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and this home invasion was a stupid idea from the get-go. I’m glad to see the homeowner is alive and unharmed, though I imagine his social media presence may be undergoing some major renovations in the future.


Below The Radar: The NICS Review Act

H/T AmmoLand.

Here is a link to the House and the Senate.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- The National Instant Check System has been a point of contention among Second Amendment supporters since the passage of the Brady Act in 1993. Some view it as an infringement and a “compromise.” Others viewed it as averting a far worse situation.

It goes without saying that at a bare minimum, the system clearly needs fixes, and the Firearm Due Process Protection Act is something that should be passed as soon as possible. But anti-Second Amendment extremists have hated the National Instant Check System, too. Why?

Because, despite claims they made at the time, it was never about background checks. At a minimum, many anti-Second Amendment extremists ultimately want a “needs-based” licensing scheme. In other words, you would need to prove to the government that you needed to own a certain gun. At which point, they would deign to grant you the license to own said firearm.

So, they have their own “fixes” in mind for NICS, and they are not along the lines Second Amendment supporters would like. One of those proposing a “NICS fix” that makes things worse is Representative Carolyn Maloney, who’s introduced HR 821, the NICS Review Act.

The NICS Review Act is intended to start the process of turning NICS into a registration system. Under current law, information on transactions that have not been denied is to be destroyed within 24 hours. The intent is to preserve the privacy of Americans who choose to exercise a constitutional right. Maloney has talked about privacy before and it has been a big deal for her on other issues.

But with the NICS Review Act, she wants the FBI to hold on to data about non-denied firearms transactions for at least 90 days. That is a huge change on two counts. One, the FBI can retain the records for much longer, almost three months. That’s bad enough for all sorts of mischief, and Maloney’s long anti-Second Amendment track record points to a desire to at least enable mischief targeting our rights.

But the real slick move on Maloney’s part is that she has now made the 90-day period a floor, instead of a limit. In short, the FBI could retain the records as long as they want. This makes her bill extremely dangerous, and it is an excellent tactical move on her part. She can paint this as a minor bill, and paint opposition to it as “those Second Amendment types being unreasonable.” But combine that change with “universal background checks” and a little bad faith, and all of a sudden, you now can create a national registry of firearms transactions with the stroke of an anti-Second Amendment president’s pen.

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators to politely urge that they oppose this bill. They also need to take the time and use this bill to explain to their fellow Americans why anti-Second Amendment extremists aren’t really proposing “reasonable” solutions.

Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Pro-Life Movement by Striking Down Law

H/T Western Journal.

Chief Justice John Roberts has done a 180 on abortion.

In 2016 Roberts voted to uphold a law almost identical to the one from Louisiana he voted to strike down.

One more reason President Trump needs to be reelected as there will be one if not two picks for the Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that a pro-life law violates the rights of both women and abortion providers in Louisiana.

Pro-lifers had expressed both hope and anxiety over the landmark abortion ruling to the Daily Caller News Foundation ahead of the decision.

Louisiana Right to Life Associate Director Angie Thomas told the DCNF that the organization, which introduced the law with Democratic Louisiana state Sen. Katrina Jackson, was “anxiously awaiting” the decision, warning that “the Louisiana abortion industry, with its long history of health and safety violations, cannot speak for Louisiana women.”

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry expressed hope about the ruling to the DCNF, emphasizing that “Louisiana abortion providers have a record of non-compliance with basic safety regulations, and now they want a special exemption from generally-accepted medical standards that apply to similar surgical procedures in our State.”

“Women seeking abortions deserve better than that; they should have the same assurance of prompt and proper care in the event of complications,” he said.

But others predicted that the justices would rule in favor of the abortion providers, given the rulings of the past several days as well as the heated nature of the opinions written by the conservative justices.

The court took up June Medical Services v. Russo in March, a case in which an abortion provider challenged a 2014 Louisiana state law introduced by Jackson.

The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, or Act 620, requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. These admitting privileges would allow a woman to go directly to the hospital if she were to need urgent care.

Opponents say the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act would hinder and potentially eliminate abortion access in Louisiana. Jackson said the law would protect women from unsafe or unhygienic abortion clinic practices.

“Just as Louisiana cares for the life of the child, it’s somehow a big secret that we also care for the life of the mother,” Jackson said at a March press conference in Washington, D.C.

Attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of June Medical Services, said there are only two abortion providers who have admitting privileges in the state and that there is “no medical justification” for these admitting privileges since abortion is “extremely safe.”

CRR originally filed June Medical Services v. Gee in August 2014.

Landry, the Louisiana AG, has maintained that the law does not force clinic closures, citing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that “there is no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act.”

Louisiana abortion providers will be able to obtain admitting privileges if they are providing competent care, Landry said in a February press release.

As is usual with abortion cases, June Medical v. Russo has been fraught with emotion.

Protestors assembled outside the Supreme Court in early March as the justices gathered to examine the case, and Senate Minority Leader Schumer sparked a backlash through what some called a threat to Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch,” Schumer said at a rally outside the Supreme Court, video from the event shows, “and I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he added.

The senator’s comments referenced the political price Republicans “will pay for putting them on the court” as well as “a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman told the DCNF at the time.

“Let me ask you my friends, are we going to let Republicans undo a woman’s right to choose,” Schumer asked the crowd. “Are we going to stay quiet as they try to turn back the clock? Are we going to give up or waver when things get tough?”

The pro-abortion activists in the crowd responded to each of these questions with a resounding “No.”

“No, we are going to stand together in one voice and take a stand on behalf of women and families throughout the country,” Schumer said. “We are going to stand against all these attempts to restrict a woman’s right to choose and we will win.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Roberts Court Will Not Defend the Second Amendment, Ever!

H/T Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership.

Maybe things will change if in his second term President Trump gets to appoint one or two more Justices to the court.

We expected the Court would once again relist all ten pending 2A cases, denying cert on each at them at the Court’s last conference for the Term. But the Court made its final determination on June 11, 2020.

No surprise to us as to the denial of cert, but the final determination came earlier than we expected. Even so, it means something more than, and something other than, most Americans realize. The cryptic, “something other than,” pertains to Roberts.

So, then, what went wrong? Actually, for Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court, nothing went wrong. Everything went according to plan.

Some proponents of 2A, including some readers of Ammoland, believe the NYC case mootness issue was properly decided. It wasn’t.

But the mootness issue is and was nothing more than a red herring. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing anticipated that the City would amend its Rules and that the State would amend its laws to avoid a consideration of and a decision on the merits, which would have necessitated consideration of Heller. And that possibility was not be countenanced. It was something that the liberal wing of the Court and Chief Justice Roberts, as well as the City of New York and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, intended to avoid at all costs.

Cuomo and the City of New York did what was expected of them. And Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court did what both they, and both the City and Cuomo, wanted: no review of New York City gun laws.

The 2A Heller issue would not be heard.

But, why did Kavanaugh side with Roberts and the liberal wing, and why did he write a puzzling and limp concurring opinion, basically telling Americans, albeit in an oblique manner, that he really does support the Second Amendment, and that the Court will have another chance to hear another case and, so, Americans should not worry?

Kavanaugh is, at best, a weak supporter of the Second Amendment and of the Bill of Rights of generally but he does appear to adhere to Supreme Court precedent. His learned and reasoned dissent in Heller II is a testament to that.

Kavanaugh likely did not wish to side with the liberal wing. We believe Chief Justice Roberts cajoled Kavanaugh into doing so. Why? It couldn’t be because a sixth vote was needed. It wasn’t. Robert’s fifth vote gave the liberal wing the majority it needed to find the case moot.

But we are dealing with appearances here: smoke and mirrors. We believe that Roberts may have tried to get another Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to join the majority, too; but Gorsuch would not do so.

A 7-2 majority decision would give Roberts even more cover, and cover is what Roberts wants. It is what he needs.

Clearly Roberts did not wish to appear alone, siding with the liberal wing of a Court, especially on a 2A matter. So, Kavanaugh reluctantly agreed to give cover Roberts cover, but insisted on drafting a concurring, to suggest: one that he does support 2A, if only half-heartedly; and, two that the Court “should” take up another 2A case soon, even as he knew full well that it wouldn’t—hence his use of the weak obligation word, ‘should,’ in the concurring, rather than the strong obligation word, ‘will.’

But, if Roberts holds such antipathy toward the Second Amendment, why did he sign on with the majority in Heller?

Roberts did, after all, side with the conservative wing in Heller and McDonald.

The Press tells us Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was the sole hold-out in Heller for the critical fifth vote needed and that the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller majority opinion, had to include language in that opinion to soften the rulings.

The Press paints a picture of Justice Anthony Kennedy as the moderate swing vote on the Court. In doing so, the Press is engaging in just another deception.

The truth of the matter is that Roberts, no less than Kennedy, and, conceivably, more so, compelled Scalia to add language to the opinion that, despite the rulings, provided Anti-Second Amendment proponents with a safe harbor; allowing Anti-Second Amendment governments to continue to do what they have been doing all along: to whittle away at the import of the Second Amendment.

So, then, what does that say about Chief Justice Roberts?

Roberts has, for a time, come across as a defender of our Bill of Rights. It was all ruse. He isn’t a defender of our Bill of Rights nor, more specifically, is he a defender of our Second Amendment; and he never has been.

Even as the Radical Left tabloid, The New York Times, refers to Roberts as a member of the conservative wing of the Court, he is no such thing, and the Times knows it. Nor is he to be perceived as a judicial, “moderate”—the proverbial swing vote, carrying the mantle of retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Roberts has no more desire to see our Second Amendment strengthened than do the Associate Justices of the liberal wing of the High Court, predominately, long “tenants” on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Why, then, did Roberts and Kennedy agree to join the majority in Heller? We think that this says something about the force and indomitability of Scalia’s personality and intellect: something lost when Justice Scalia met with a deeply tragic and clearly puzzling death. And Roberts has no intention ever again to lock horns with another Justice who has the indomitability of spirit of Scalia.

It is now Justice Roberts’ Court in fact not merely in name. It is no longer Justice Scalia’s Court.

Recall that George Bush nominated John Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as the Chief Justice, not merely as an Associate Justice. This was no accident.

As Chief Justice of the High Court, John Roberts sets the tone of the Court and wields considerable leverage over the Court, as we deduce from Robert’s obvious success in cajoling Kavanaugh to side with him, to join the liberal wing on the mootness issue.

The High Court is said to grant writs in four circumstances, as set forth in detail in the Peter Blair weblog:

  • Conflict of lawThe Supreme Court may elect to step in and make a ruling when different courts reach different conclusions about federal or constitutional law. With 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts, the U.S. Supreme Court may want to step in and clarify certain legal issues so every court operates under the same law going forward.
  • National importanceIf a case has national significance and is important to the public as a whole, the Supreme Court may decide to take it on. The Supreme Court has discretion when it comes to taking these cases, such as Bush v. Gore after the contested 2000 election, Roe v. Wade, or US v. Nixon concerning the Watergate tapes.
  • Lower courts disregarding Supreme Court decisions: If a case has arisen because lower courts are disregarding past Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case to correct the lower court or overrule the case without a full trial.
  • Justices’ interestIn certain cases, a justice may want to hear a certain case because it addresses an issue in their personal favorite area of law.

In every case that has been brought to the Court’s attention since Heller and McDonald, all four of the above factors are satisfied.

Yet, in all instances, the High Court has either denied cert or has side-stepped the Second Amendment issue altogether, as it had done in Voisine and in the recent New York City case.

So what does that tell you? It tells you that the Court will take up a case when it wants to. And that’s that!

In the instant case, Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court do not want to take up a 2A case, but then, the conservative wing won’t do so either, unless it can be assured that Roberts is on board with them. He isn’t and won’t be, ever.

The Roberts’ Court will not take up another Second Amendment case unless the Court is able to sidestep the core 2A issue as in the Voisine case, or in the recent NYC gun transport case, or when or if the liberal wing knows it has a decisive majority. That would be calamitous. It would sound the death knell for Heller and McDonald. Once our right to keep and bear arms will be lost, our Nation will be undone.

Thus, the conservative wing won’t wish to hear a Second Amendment case unless it knows that Roberts is on board, and Roberts will never be on board.

Understand, each Justice knows how each of the others would resolve a case before any vote is cast to grant cert or to deny cert on a case.

Justice Thomas’s scathing dissents reflect his knowledge—which obviously, he cannot express openly—that Roberts will not support the Second Amendment. It is as simple as that.

So, forget further support from the High Court apropos of the preservation of and strengthening of our Bill of Rights, given the Court’s current composition with five Justices clearly antithetical to preservation and strengthening of our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties.

Those five Justices antithetical to the preservation and strengthening of our sacred rights and liberties include: Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Chief Justice John Roberts, whom the seditious, tabloid, New York Times continually, invariably, and deceptively includes in the roster of the conservative-wing of the High Court.

Of the conservative-wing, only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito adhere, most consistently, to the import of the text of the Constitution as originally ratified and to the import of Statutes as written.

The current majority on the Roberts Court may neuter the Bill of Rights,  but they cannot so easily neutralize an armed citizenry that refuses to give up its natural rights.


Supreme Court Sides With Trump On Fast-Track Deportations

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision get a ruling on illegals right.

How will the vote of Notorious RBG going with the Conservative justices set with the libs?

The Supreme Court rejected an ACLU-backed bid to slow deportations Thursday, dealing a major victory to the Trump administration and denying some asylum seekers the right to make their case to a federal judge.

A Sri Lankan migrant named Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, who was apprehended just 25 yards from the southern border after entering the country illegally, is at the center of the case. The legal question was whether asylum seekers can seek habeas corpus, the basic right to have your detention reviewed by a judge, when they are fast-tracked for removal.

“This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution’s bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers,” said ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt, who argued before the justices for Thuraissigiam. “This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger.”

Thursday’s decision follows a Tuesday ruling from a federal appeals court that allowed the Trump administration to expand fast-track deportations. Taken together, the rulings are a boon to Trump’s efforts to speed the pace of deportations, burnishing his border hawk credentials ahead of the November election.

The bottom-line outcome was 7-2. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion, which the Court’s conservatives joined. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the result but did not join the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

Thuraissigiam is a member of Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, who face abuse by the Sri Lankan government according to human rights groups. In January 2017, Thuraissigiam asked for asylum after he was intercepted entering the United States unlawfully. An immigration officer determined he did not have a “credible fear” of persecution and his superiors signed off, teeing up a quick deportation. Asylum seekers who fail the credible-fear test are placed in a speedy expulsion protocol called “expedited removal.”

There were almost 100,000 credible-fear claims in 2018.

A 1996 immigration law dictates that courts can’t review a credible-fear determination. Immigration authorities get the final word. Nonetheless, Thuraissigiam went to a federal judge and asked for a second chance at his asylum interview, arguing he should have passed the credible-fear stage. The judge refused. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived Thuraissigiam’s bid and ruled that the 1996 law violates the Constitution’s suspension clause, which forbids rescinding habeas corpus except in case of emergency.

The High Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling Thursday and said Thuraissigiam’s claim went well beyond the scope of habeas corpus as understood when the Constitution was adopted.

“Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but [Thuraissigiam] invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end,” namely the right to stay in the United States and get a new credible-fear interview, Alito wrote.

“Claims so far outside the core of habeas may not be pursued through habeas,” he wrote elsewhere, citing earlier cases from 2008 and 2011.

There was also a practical concern. Given that thousands of asylum seekers are placed in expedited removal, the government feared a ruling for Thuraissigiam would prompt a surge of habeas petitions in federal courts. That’s contrary to the design of the 1996 law, Alito said.

“The potential for a flood would be, of course, far greater if this Court holds that there is a right to file a habeas-seeking review of a negative credible-fear determination,” Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler told the justices during oral arguments in March. By the Justice Department’s count, about 100 asylum seekers sought habeas following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Thuraissigiam’s case, he said.

In a separate opinion, Breyer agreed that Thuraissigiam should lose, but said the Court should not go further and explore “difficult questions” touching deportations and the suspension clause.

In dissent, Sotomayor said the majority needlessly “purges an entire class of legal challenges” to immigration detention and wrongfully limited the ancient writ of habeas corpus.

“Today’s decision handcuffs the judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers,” Sotomayor wrote. “It will leave significant exercises of executive discretion unchecked in the very circumstance where the writ’s protections have been strongest.”

Justice Thomas Accuses Supreme Court of Dodging Gun Cases

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Justice Thomas is correct with his observation about the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court.

Court has ruled in just one 2nd Amendment case since 2011.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a slew of gun-rights challenges focused on everything from state “assault weapons” bans to safety requirements and permit issues, sparking a blistering dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas who accused his fellow justices of “looking the other way” on Second Amendment cases.

Second Amendment advocates were hoping the High Court would take up at least some of the legal challenges to gun-control laws that have passed in New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Those cases were denied certiorari, meaning the High Court will not take them up. 

The lack of action sparked some justices to dissent. Thomas slammed his colleagues for refusing to take up Rogers v. Grewal, a challenge to New Jersey’s gun-carry law that allows government officials to subjectively deny permits. Thomas—joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—said the state government’s requirement that residents provide a reason for exercising a constitutional right warranted judicial oversight. 

“This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights,” Thomas wrote. “And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”

The Supreme Court has only ruled in one Second Amendment case since 2011. That 2016 case, Caetano v. Massachusetts, dealt with a law concerning stun guns and other less lethal weapons rather than firearms. Despite having a wealth of cases dealing with federal and state policies and laws, however, the High Court has largely sat out on debates about the Second Amendment. Gun-rights activists accused the Court of failing to protect the Second Amendment and of abdicating its role as a check on legislative and executive overreach. 

“Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the Court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller [2008] and McDonald [2010] Supreme Court decisions affirming the right to keep and bear arms,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said. 

The National Rifle Association said the Court’s silence on these controversies will allow “politicians to trample on the freedom and security of law-abiding citizens.” 

“The Bill of Rights specifically includes the right to keep and bear arms because self-defense is fundamental to the liberty of a free society,” the National Rifle Association said in a statement. “Today’s inaction continues to allow so-called gun safety politicians to trample on the freedom and security of law-abiding citizens.” 

Gun-control group Brady United praised the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a “win for the safety of Americans.”

“Today’s action was a blow to the NRA, the gun lobby, and those who seek to deprive Americans of the authority to enact strong public safety laws that protect their communities from gun violence. We are pleased that the Court chose not to consider the gun lobby’s plea to radically reinterpret the Second Amendment,” Brady chief counsel Jonathan Lowy said. “While today is a win for the safety of Americans, we must remain vigilant, as some Justices are bent on vastly expanding gun rights.”

The move comes after the Court dismissed its first major gun case in nearly a decade in April without ruling on the merits. That case dealt with a strict New York City law limiting how owners could transport their firearms. The Court ultimately decided the issue was moot after the city moved to repeal its restrictions once the Court granted review in the case. 

Gottlieb, who had expressed optimism that the Court would become more active on gun cases when it took the New York case, blamed Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court’s decision to deny the gun cases.

“The Supreme Court’s refusal to take a Second Amendment Foundation case falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts,” he said. “He owes every gun owner in the United States an explanation about why the High Court declined to hear a number of important Second Amendment cases.”  

Ultimately, Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh said Rogers v. Grewal should have been taken up by the Court and expressed their dismay at the Court’s refusal to further clarify the individual right to keep and bear arms that the Supreme Court protected in 2008’s landmark Heller decision, which struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban. 

“This case gives us an opportunity to provide lower courts with much-needed guidance, ensure adherence to our precedents, and resolve a Circuit split. Each of these reasons is independently sufficient to grant certiorari. In combination, they unequivocally demonstrate that this case warrants our review,” Thomas wrote. “Rather than prolonging our decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment, I would grant this petition.” 


Supreme Court Conservatives Blast Fellow Justices for Backing Down on Gun Rights

H/T Western Journal.

Hopefully, before 2025, President Trump will get to replace both Stephen Breyer and Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg.

If this doesn’t sharpen the focus on 2020 election, not much will.

The Supreme Court delivered another disappointment to conservatives Monday, not only by deciding to insert transgender rights into American law, but by turning away a slate of court cases that aimed to solidify a right that’s actually enshrined in the Constitution.

Fortunately, two of the staunchest conservatives on the high court let it be known they weren’t happy with their colleagues. Justice Clarence Thomas — with evident mockery — compared the court’s disregard for the Second Amendment with liberal justices’ knee-jerk predictability on abortion.

According to Bloomberg, the court on Monday rejected even hearing 10 gun-rights cases, including challenges to New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland laws that restrict permits to carry firearms for self-defense, as well as bans on “assault weapons” in Massachusetts and Cook County, Illinois, which includes the utopia of peaceful coexistence known as Chicago.

Liberals were likely laughing at yet another high court battle going their way (since the court refused to hear the challenges, the laws stand), but judging by a dissent Thomas wrote, joined in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the patience of the court’s conservatives is wearing thin.

And considering the relative age of some other members of the high court — the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 87, Stephen Breyer will be 82 come Election Day — there’s a good chance that the man elected in November will have replaced at least one justice by the time January 2025 rolls around.

President Donald Trump has made no secret of his support for Second Amendment rights, and his selection of one or two more justices on the Supreme Court could help ensure that in the next few years, the kinds of cases that were turned away on Monday could be making lasting case law in favor of gun owners.

In his dissent, Thomas noted — as he has in the past — that the high court treats gun rights as a kind of optional right in the Constitution that state and local governments can toy with at will, while it consistently treats abortion as though it were actually included in the conversations in Philadelphia back in 1787.

As described by Law.com, one case involved a New Jersey man who sought a permit to carry a weapon because his job as a supplier of automatic teller machines made him a target for armed robbery.

Most sane people would think a job that requires, by definition, carrying a large amount of cash would justify a weapon permit, but that wasn’t good enough for the local police chief who needed to know about “specific threats,” Law.com reported.

It’s important to remember that the Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed if they face specific threats.”

In the dissent Kavanaugh joined, Thomas contrasted the court’s reluctance to take on the New Jersey case to the alacrity its liberals demonstrate when it comes to protecting the “right” of every woman to abort the child growing in her womb — a “right” invented out of whole cloth in 1973’s Roe v. Wade, the most shameful ruling since the Dred Scott decision (another malicious masterpiece of Democratic reasoning).

“The text of the Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’ We have stated that this ‘fundamental righ[t]’ is ‘necessary to our system of ordered liberty,’” Thomas wrote.

“Yet, in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so. One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review. This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.” (Emphasis added.)

That’s the long and short of it.

Outside of the current hyperemotional allegations that American police are targeting black men — which researchers like the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald have repeatedly proven to be a myth — few subjects demonstrate liberal hypocrisy on the Constitution more clearly than their celebration of the “right” of abortion versus their scorn for the actual right to bear arms.

(The high court has yet to announce its decision in June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, another of the term’s closely watched cases involving a Louisana law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at hospitals near the clinics they operate.)

There’s no doubt American conservatives have been let down repeatedly by Republican presidents’ appointment to the Supreme Court. The Charlie Brown-Lucy act was getting old even before Chief Justice John Roberts pulled the granddaddy of all betrayals with his 2012 ruling in that saved Obamacare. As a moral monstrosity, it wasn’t quite in the league with Dred Scott and Roe, but intellectually speaking, it’s near thing.

And there’s no doubt that conservatives were hearing the Supreme Court argument for electing Republican presidents long before now-President Donald Trump rode down that Trump Tower escalator in 2015 on his way to changing world history.

But thanks to the GOP hold on the Senate, Trump has had four years to appoint record-setting numbers of men and women to the federal bench. He’s appointed two Supreme Court justices (only one of whom, regrettably, joined in Monday’s dissent.)

It’s probably not a coincidence that Thomas and Kavanaugh were the two justices who survived the most brutal of attacks on their way to the high court, they’ve both been through fights few public figures have survived.

Clearly they’re ready to keep fighting.

If Trump wins in November, there’s a good chance they’ll be getting more support before his second term is over.

If former Vice President Joe Biden is in the White House, however, it’s going to be a long time before conservatives get another chance – if they ever do.

Of course, Monday’s decisions were disappointments, but it’s  what happens next that matters — and the biggest “what happens next” on the calendar right now is Nov. 3.

If Monday’s events didn’t sharpen the focus on that date, not much else will.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Denies Cert, In Pending 2A Cases

H/T Bearing Arms.

No big surprise the Supreme Court punts on the Second Amendment again.

If we can replace Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsberg then maybe the Second Amendment cases will finally get heard.


The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to the future of Second Amendment litigation Monday morning by rejecting nearly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases that it had been considering in conference in recent weeks. Despite four justices announcing in the challenge to a New York City gun law that was mooted by the high court that they wanted and were ready to hear one of the many 2A cases pending before the court, today’s orders take them all off the table.

Here’s a quick look at the cases denied by the Supreme Court in its orders today.

Pena v. Horan is a challenge to California’s microstamping law, which took effect in 2012 and has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns, but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state.

Gould v. Lipson is a challenge to Massachusetts’ carry laws.

Worman v. Healey is a challenge to the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons.

Rogers v. GrewalCheeseman v. Polillo, and  Ciolek v. New Jersey all deal with challenges to New Jersey’s carry laws and “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland.

Culp v. Raoul challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license, while Wilson v. Cook County takes on the Illinois county’s ban on modern sporting rifles.

Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, released a written dissent to the denial of the Rogers vs. Grewal case blasting his colleagues for refusing to hear the case.

It appears that a handful of States throughout the country prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The majority of States, while regulating the carrying of arms to varying degrees, have not imposed such a restriction, which amounts to a “[b]a[n] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.”

The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous “justifiable need” or “good cause” restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property” violates the Second Amendment.

By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with “justifiable need” or “good reason” requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard. “One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matter[s]’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in conflict.’” The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.

Why didn’t the Supreme Court take a single one of these cases, given the fact that we know there were four justices in favor of hearing a Second Amendment-related challenge? The most obvious answer is that the four justices were unconvinced that they would have a fifth and deciding vote to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in both the Heller and McDonald decisions, but it could be that there are doubts among the conservative wing of the Court as to how Roberts would rule in a future case.

It may also be that while justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all agree that a Second Amendment-related case needs to be heard, the four simply couldn’t agree on which case or cases should get the nod from the Court.

We don’t know for sure, because the Supreme Court is one of the last remaining leak-proof institutions in Washington, D.C., but I’d say that for now, the theory that Roberts is a question mark or has indicated opposition to these 2A cases is the most likely theory.

We’ll have much more on today’s decision, and what it means for the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence coming up on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. this afternoon, so be sure to tune in for more analysis of today’s incredibly disappointing decision by the Supreme Court.

Below The Radar: Secure Communities and Safe Schools Act

H/T AmmoLand.

It is time to let our Senate and House Members how we feel about this bill.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One thing that has been clear over the years is that perhaps the worst damage the Second Amendment and those who defend it – in the sense of public relations – has been school shootings. We can literally trace massive, sweeping anti-Second Amendment legislation, often at the state level to Columbine, Sandy Hook, and other tragic incidents.

Often, they had high body counts. These counts fueled media coverage and were used by anti-Second Amendment extremists to fuel fear and hysteria among suburban women. As much as Second Amendment supporters want to believe Bloomberg’s billions are 100 percent astroturf, that is not quite the case. Everytown/Moms Demand Action does have support from some parents with real worries, and it means that his money is more amplification than it is true astroturf.

Now, there have been efforts to improve school security. One of those efforts has been to allow teachers to be armed to protect themselves and their students. However, despite massive demand (just Utah and Ohio show just how much), there are some who want to halt such efforts, or at least put barriers in place.

One of those is Representative Val Demings (D-FL), who introduced HR 2383, the Secure Communities, and Safe Schools Act. She doesn’t outright ban teachers from carrying but throws a different hurdle up: School districts will be prohibited from using money from various federal security grant programs to buy teachers firearms or accessories.

Now, if your goal is to halt – or at least mitigate – a school shooting, then this bill is counterproductive. Just look at the West Freeway Church of Christ to see why. That church shooting was stopped by armed intervention on-site in six seconds. Compare that to all the places where cops take minutes to arrive.

Now, we all know a teacher’s salary doesn’t go far. To buy a firearm, holster, ammo, and the range time to train properly is pretty expensive. So, using those grant funds to allow teachers to buy firearms would be a way to help make the schools safer. It works much like concealed carry – not all teachers that carry, but the fact a fraction do carry introduces uncertainty into any attacker’s plan.

Demings, as a former police chief, knows how long it can take cops to arrive. Yet despite knowing the truth, she seeks to leave schools helpless. Worse, this bill has already been reported to the full House of Representatives. Second Amendment supporters need to move fast to stop this bill in its tracks.

They need to contact their Senators and Representative, and politely urge them to oppose HR 2383.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized

H/T Western Journal.

It is time for Ruth Buzzi(Baden)Ginsburg to step down and enjoy what time she has left.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been hospitalized for what is being called a complication related to her gallbladder.

Ginsburg, 87, who is a staunch member of the court’s liberal wing, has battled cancer since 2018.

Although the court is in session, it is not currently meeting in person and is instead hearing cases remotely.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent non-surgical treatment for acute cholecystitis, a benign gallbladder condition, this afternoon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland,” the Supreme Court said in a news release Tuesday.

“Following oral arguments on Monday, the Justice underwent outpatient tests at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., that confirmed she was suffering from a gallstone that had migrated to her cystic duct, blocking it and causing an infection,” the statement said.

“The Justice is resting comfortably and plans to participate in the oral argument teleconference tomorrow morning remotely from the hospital. She expects to stay in the hospital for a day or two. Updates will be provided as they become available.”

As of last month, Ginsburg was exercising in a spot reserved for her, according to CNN.