Supreme Court Issues 2nd Amendment Blow

Screen Shot 2014-05-05 at 12.18.52 PM

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow lower courts to continue rubberstamping any and every kind of law that violates the 2nd Amendment.

In a major announcement this morning, the Supreme Court refused to hear Drake v. Jerejian, a case challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s arbitrary rules governing the right to carry handguns in public for purposes of self-defense.

The lawyer behind the case is Alan Gura, the civil rights litigator who previously argued and won both Heller and McDonald before the high court. In an interview with me last month, Gura explained his reasons for bringing the Drake case. “We’ve seen courts rubberstamp just about any kind of law that violates the Second Amendment,” he said, describing the legal climate in the wake of Heller and McDonald. “Unless the Supreme Court decides to enforce its pronouncements, the Second Amendment will apply only to the extent that some lower courts are willing to honor Supreme Court precedent.”

It now appears the Supreme Court is content to let the lower courts keep rubberstamping away.

Drake v. Jerejian deserved the high court’s attention. At issue was New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law, which requires applicants to prove they have a “justifiable need” before local officials will issue a handgun carry permit. Unlike those states that maintain a “shall issue” permit regime, where applicants are required to satisfy a clear list of objective criteria, such as completing a firearms safety course and passing a criminal background check (if you meet the qualifications, the government “shall issue” you a permit), New Jersey grants local officials wide leeway in determining what qualifies as a “justifiable need” in their respective jurisdictions.

The practical effect of that wide leeway has been the overwhelming denial of permit applications by local officials. In the words of state Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May), “It’s virtually never done.”

“Americans are not required to justify their need to exercise a fundamental right,” Gura stressed in his interview with me. “If the government can force you to provide a reason to exercise your right, then it’s no longer a right.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, by contrast, which ruled against Gura in 2013, saw no constitutional problem with the state’s licensing scheme because it “does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment.”

By refusing to hear the Drake appeal today, the Supreme Court left that ruling by the 3rd Circuit undisturbed. Yet in 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Moore v. Madigan (another case brought by Alan Gura), reached the opposite conclusion, voting to strike down Illinois’ blanket ban on carrying guns in public. “The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” the 7th Circuit held.

The Supreme Court should have tackled that circuit split head on. Because it failed to do so, the Second Amendment now means one thing for responsible gun owners living in New Jersey and another thing for those living in Illinois.

Read more here

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Frank W Brown

    The Supremes Have Only Helped Us Get Here…

    A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots!

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but 
not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might 
live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or 
to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might 
live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a 
check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not 
to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that 
was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from 
owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty 
F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but 
not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make 
you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is 
run by idiots.

    If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a 
wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman 
in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head 
searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but 
is run by idiots.

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions 
of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his 
teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class 
in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation 
that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more 
government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with 
Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free 
cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses 
but is run by idiots.

    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to 
provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment
 checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was 
diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation 
that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest 
big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a 
wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government 
forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a
 nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself 
makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a 
nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the media panders to your openly socialist leader while the IRS targets groups with dissenting views— you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If your government ‘cracks down’ on legal gun sales to law abiding citizens while secretly supplying illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels— you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If your local government (Chicago) outlawed gun ownership for ‘the safety of its citizens’ and now boasts the worst murder rate in the country — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    What a country!

    How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America?

    This was borrowed from another blog, please spread it far and wide!

    • Devilrider

      There will be a terrible civil war soon.

      • Rodney

        We can only hope so.

      • janfra

        That would be the only way out of this mess we are in.

      • I have been eagerly awaiting that great event, with almost orgasmic anticipation!!

        • Sardis


  • Ken Pangborn

    thanks roberts

  • robertdavidhummel

    Whoa’, Be unto those that might ATTEMPT to Change the 2nd Ammendment, ….WITH-OUT THE , …VOICE of “We The people”. …PERIOD.

    • Douglas Moore

      “Woe”. 😉

      • Terri Thigpen

        Seems like woe and whoa are both appropriate here

        • Douglas Moore


  • daveveselenak

    The commies are in full control of all branches of government, media, academia, entertainment, sports, court system and banks and that is why REVOLUTION will be the SOLUTION!

  • Ron

    All one has to do is look at their faces and one will understand why we do not have a supreme court.

    • Sardis

      What on earth does that mean? What is it about their faces?

  • CrustyOldGeezer


    Jury decisions cannot be appealed.


    • Try and get that information to the juries. Most states won’t allow the juries to be informed of this!

      • CrustyOldGeezer

        Most States don’t have a choice in the matter.

        They want people to be uninformed and just be a rubber stamp for the judge but to actively deny dissemination of the information they cannot do.

        That is why I always add the website when the subject comes up.


        They have pamphlets and information you can order and spread around in your community.

  • ICEE444

    I keep saying it…the supreme court is a federal entity of big government too scared to rule against it for fear that their legitimacy might come into question because they don’t always uphold the Constitution equally for everyone in every state. Those type of rulings subject to decision by majority vote not the whim of paid off liberal state court’s full of decadent judges unconstitutional judges. On top of that we need this civil war to get started already and purge this country by force and let them know we the majority still rule.

  • loran

    It sure appears that the SCOTUS is in fact avoiding rulings on same sex marriage and the 2nd amendment. I wonder what is in the wind. They will eventually have to rule.

  • daddyhawg

    SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage which is not a God given right but will not rule on the 2nd Amendment which is by all accords protected by the Bill of Rights and a God given right to self protection and preservation. The political process has influenced the bench for far too long and this needs to change.
    Judges should have no political affiliations in order to help preserve their neutrality when making decisions and not become policy makers as they have.

  • TiredVET1

    Supreme court ha what a joke nothing in this country is supreme in any decisions made in the past 6 years why should we expect anything other than a decision like this. And the saga contuines to degrade destroy and undermined this great nation of We The People.

  • foxxybey

    Idiot Nazi’s in black and need to be off the bench and heads out of there butts.

    • Sardis

      If you are concerned with grammar and usage, then I think you meant to say “Idiot Nazis in black need to be off the bench and get their heads our of their butts.”

      If you were concerned with historical accuracy, rational argument, and not sounding like a fool, then you wouldn’t make wild comparisons to Nazis when no legitimate comparison can be drawn.

      • foxxybey

        Thanks for the correction concerning the Nazis in black robes, as for the rest, history proves me right, real history and not revised history. I’m not a fool but anyone who says the Nazis and Hitler didn’t take complete control of Germany is just dumb, stupid and blind left wing nut jobs. I guess you never learned real history friend or you wouldn’t comment so foolishly about history, taught it and know it well, seems you should take another course, oops wouldn’t do you any good today, the union socialist school teachers don’t teach real history anymore. Hitler controlled the courts, everything in society and the culture if you read and learned real history, Thanks for the correction once again and supplying me with a good laugh for the day. God Bless and Shalom:

        • Sardis

          Shalom? I don’t think a lot of Jews would appreciate your choice to equate the Supreme Court Justices to Nazis. The Nazis carried out systematic torture and genocide, and the Supreme Court just makes choices that don’t suit your political ideology. There’s a bit of a difference. Tell me if I’m missing something, but I haven’t noticed any secret police making arrests in this country, nor have I seen people being rounded up and killed based on their race, sexual orientation, or religious preference. If we lived under a Nazi regime, I doubt a website like this one would even be allowed to exist. You don’t know how good you have it. How dare you throw around the term “Nazi” like you know what it means.

          Not only that, has it ever occurred to you that by declining to hear a case, the Supreme Court actually **declined** to exert their control over an issue? This means that they let this remain a region-by-region issue, as opposed to exerting their authority over the entire country. These “Nazis” could have taken the case and ruled in favor of gun control, but they didn’t. You’re throwing around names and insults without even understanding what you’re reading or what you’re talking about.

          • foxxybey

            Anything this Jew can’t stand is some idiot who cant see what Hitler did and what this supreme court and the illegal president is doing, The supreme court is to uphold the Constitution, not a liberal or conservative sid, so you point is? I guess you have read or seen the cops who are breaking into home and taking them over, the lame stream media you source doesn’t say or do anything to hurt you lib agenda. Your a blind, dumb and stupid who can’t see your freedoms going out the door, wow, your a real idiot. The Supreme Court is there to up hold the Constitution, not change it or have you no brains at all? Your to dumb and blind to see the real world so go play with yourself if there is anything to play with boy, sissy non American brown shirt idiot, get what ever,

          • Sardis

            Your comment is nearly incomprehensible.

            Re-read my previous comment. The Supreme Court has not changed the Constitution by deciding not to hear a case. In effect, the Supreme Court declined to change anything at all. There’s no reason for you to be mad that they decided not to hear it…you don’t even know if they would’ve ruled the way you wanted if they did hear the case!

            I suppose Obama is “the illegal president” because he’s a Muslim communist fascist terrorist born in Africa or Mexico or Costa Rica or something?

          • Bill Kelly

            “I suppose Obama is “the illegal president” because he’s a Muslim communist fascist terrorist born in Africa or Mexico or Costa Rica or something?” That is the first correct statement you have made!

      • 203engr

        Sardis: If the only thing you have to contribute is correcting a word usage, then you need to stay out of the fight and go find some third graders to impress with your menial bullshit. (I think I spelled everything correctly) But, if I didn’t, you got my point.

        • Sardis

          Pardon me if I get a kick out of mocking foxxybey’s comment. The way it was written betrays ignorance almost as much as the substance of what he or she wrote, and ridiculous comparisons to Nazis really tick me off. Tell me when the Supreme Court has carried out systematic torture and genocide, and maybe I’ll calm down. Otherwise, you’re belittling a real-life tragedy of monstrous proportions even while you make specious, inflammatory, unsupported arguments.

          • foxxybey

            Sardis get you blind and stupid head out of where the sun don’t shine and smells like liberal butt. Your a jerk Nazi yourself.

          • Sardis

            There it is again, calling people Nazis.

            Were the Nazis also known for expressing unpopular opinions in ultraconservative blog comment sections?

          • foxxybey

            Why don’t you go play with what you think is a brain, as your skull is empty. Bye. left wing nut job.

          • Sardis

            There’s a book that could help you out. It’s called “Learning To Read And Write : Developmentally Appropriate Practices For Young Children” by Seusann B. Neuman.

          • foxxybey

            A picture of yourself I’m sure, wow, what a ego for a empty skull. LOL

        • foxxybey

          203engr, that is what libs do when they have no answers to real issues. God Bless Friend and Shalom;

        • foxxybey

          You sure seem to get the point? LOL

      • Guest

        Suck a little air and let the guy get it off his chest! Not everyone has a silver spoon in his or her mouth and an Ivy League School sheepskin on their wall!

      • foxxybey

        Liberals always revert to your ploy when they don’t get the answers they want or can’t discuss the subject, and you just proved me right again.

  • bdcorvette

    This ruling only encourages good citizens to join the ranks of the criminals who carry illegally. I hope that they will take their chances and pack heat. When under threat of physical harm, kill the bastards and take your chances in front of a jury. Thank goodness that Virginia is more enlightened. I carry everywhere and can defend both myself and my family legally as long as certain common sense conditions are present before I draw down.

  • astrojohn

    The same court said you HAD to buy a product you don’t want or need (e.g., pregnancy coverage for men…)…just sayin’ Why would we expect any different this time.

  • Joken Joe

    Stand tall and proud! It’s your right to ignore unconstitutional law’s!

  • jer1041

    Every branch of Gov’t is now corrupted. Illegal voting is allowed, illegal border breaching is allowed, and apparently the Constitution is no longer enforced. Oh well, back to the sitcoms.

    • Nick

      Today the constitution is regarded by “progressives” as an archaic old document that gets in the way of “progress”. No resistance patriotic Americans put up will succeed until we accept the simple fact that the United States of America is dead and gone. We already live in a collectivist society.

  • rs1123

    I don’t know how a Constitutional right is only a right if they decide you have a need for it.

  • Phil McMorrow

    The right … shall not be infringed unless a judge feels like it.

  • MadMadJack

    The Supreme Court has outlived its intent and purpose. If for some reason Obama makes more SCOTUS appointments before his presidency is finished the America we knew is finished. Think about what the Supreme Court has done for normal Christian constitutional believing Americans lately. Can’t think of anything can you? Sad, sad, sad.

    • Sardis

      Why should the Supreme Court do anything with Christians in mind? Hasn’t it been a Constitutional principle from the start that there is a separation of Church and State? If the government actively persecuted any particular religious group, that would be a problem. If the government actively worked to please a particular religious group, that would be a problem as well.

  • Had the constitutional framers established government upon God-expected responsibilities (such Psalm 149:6-9 & 1 Timothy 5:8) instead of optional Enlightenment rights (such as the Second Amendment), the Supreme Court wouldn’t be deciding such cases to begin with. They would have been determined from the inception of such government:

    “…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 http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html.

    Then listen to our Featured Message “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” found about half-way down our home page.

  • Stanley Hill

    With all the wire/phone tapping and all other ways they collect information on all the people including Supreme Court Justices, it makes me wonder what the Administration is holding over their heads to get the response that is coming out of the Court?

  • Chuck S

    Is there any doubt that there is something fishy going on in the Supreme Court? Someone has suborned them and is using them for ideological purposes. Can there be any better argument for an Amendment for SCOTUS term limits and state legislature override of SCOTUS decisions?

    From The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin:

    An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override

    SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.

    SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third or the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.

    SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for more than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.

    SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

    SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

    SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion of rendered by the Supreme Court.

    SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.

    SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

    • Sardis

      At the end of the day, the U.S. Constitution is a legal document. It’s a statement of the basic laws which form the underpinnings of this country’s government. Who could possibly be better qualified to interpret a legal document than a panel of the country’s most distinguished and best-educated lawyers?

      The legislature has the chance to shoot down the President’s nomination of Justice. This is an example of what we have set up as checks and balances on the three branches of government.

      The “Liberty Amendments” that you seem to be endorsing concentrate all of the power in one branch, the legislature. Right now, the legislature makes the laws, and the courts weigh in to decide if those laws are constitutional, as needed. This is known as “judicial review” and has been a doctrine of U.S. law since 1803, with the Marbury v. Madison decision. What you’re proposing essentially strips the courts of the power of judicial review and says that the legislatures get to not only make the laws but decide whether their own laws were Constitutional.

      If this was how the system historically worked, then I can imagine schools would still be segregated today in some of the southern states, to name one incomprehensible reality.

      The point of all of this is that when a person or people serving within of branch of our government does something you don’t like, you should not advocate for a radical change in the nature of the government’s structure, simply to remove the possibility that certain persons (whose tenures are temporary) can ever displease you ever again. You’d seek to meddle with a system of checks and balances that you may not fully understand.

      P.S., I hope I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that if we had a staunchly conservative Supreme Court right now and a liberal legislature, you would be applauding the power of the Court and criticizing the tyranny of our congressional system.

  • Formerparatrooper

    If the Gov. continues to try and take away our GOD given rights from law abiding Americans, there will be push back and some judges may no like the outcome.

    • Sardi

      Your “GOD” given rights? The Constitution was drafted by men, many of whom were not Christians (forgive me, but I suspect that you are one who believes that Christianity belongs in American governance).

      Your comment sounds vaguely threatening. Would you threaten people because they have radically different ideas and political views than you do? As someone who loves the freedom that comes with living in this country, I would be more worried by comments like yours than I would be by the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case.

      • Formerparatrooper

        Look up the meaning of Read the 2nd. amendment and tell m what kind of rights are mentioned. Then look up the meaning of that word. After you have done that tell me which member of the founders was not Christian. Additionally just because I believe in GOD doesn’t necessarily make me a Christian. I would only threaten those conspiring to take away my rights under the Constitution.

        • Les Larson

          And I would be glad to provide cover fire…

        • Sardis

          The Constitution was drafted before the Bill of Rights, the document which contained the first Ten Amendments. After the Constitution was drafted, there was substantial debate among political types as to whether it gave too much power to a central government and would form a system too similarly to the much-reviled monarchy. Eventually, the framers came up with a separate document, called the Bill of Rights, which they attached to the Constitution in order to mollify the naysayers and to get the Constitution ratified. Don’t get me wrong; I agree that the Bill of Rights grants us hugely important freedoms. It is wrong to somehow say that they were handed down from a higher power…they are codified Enlightenment ideals, and they were drafted as a political bargaining chip in order to get the Constitution ratified.

          As to your question regarding the religion of the Founders, I’ll quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

          “Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God” and the “Creator,” the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, thatBenjamin Franklin’s proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.

          In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended aUnitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.”

  • MH Snider

    Want to know what the problem is? Beside’s CalGun’s and the NRA siding with the state to try and derail the following lawsuit, yes you read correctly, the NRA has sided with the State of California to try and defeat the following lawsuit. The NRA does NOT want open carry to be legal. The NRA is not our friend.

    For Immediate Release – Redondo Beach CaliforniaThere is an old saying that a definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time.

    In 2008 the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment which held that it guarantees the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

    The High Court qualified its decision by saying:

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”

    If that wasn’t clear enough for some folks, Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.””

    Despite the clear language in the decision, the two largest so called gun-rights groups (the NRA and SAF) have led one charge after another in the Federal courts arguing that the Supreme Court really didn’t mean what it said about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be banned.

    Right alongside the NRA have been hundreds of convicted criminals bringing parallel appeals arguing the same thing in attempts to overturn their criminal convictions for carrying concealed weapons in public. In every Federal and State court, these criminals have lost their appeals. The judges in those cases cite the quotes above and it is case closed.

    Worse, not only do their lawsuits seek to carry handguns concealed, they argue that the government can require permits to carry a firearm in public, regardless of whether the firearm is carried openly or concealed.

    Back during the oral arguments in that landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the attorney for Dick Heller (Alan Gura) was encouraged by the Court to challenge the permit requirement for having a firearm in the home. Mr. Gura refused. Since the permit requirement was not challenged, the Supreme Court noted this and said it was not deciding whether or not a permit is required.

    No other provision of the Bill of Rights requires that an individual first have a government issued permission slip before he can exercise his rights such as freedom of speech and religion or need a permit to be entitled to their protections such as the warrant requirement, the right against self-incrimination, etc.

    And so, should it come as any surprise to anyone that today the US Supreme Court turned down yet another concealed carry appeal, this time out of New Jersey? An appeal which argued that the Supreme Court really did not mean what it said about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be banned.

    There are a few who point out that New Jersey handgun carry permits allow handguns to be carried openly or concealed. A permit which allows for concealed carry is still a concealed carry permit and moreover, it is a government issued permission slip required to exercise a fundamental, enumerated individual right to openly carry a handgun for the purpose of self-defense.

    There is only one lawsuit which argues that the Supreme Court meant exactly what it said about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution and which argues that the government cannot require a permission slip to exercise one’s Second Amendment Right – That lawsuit is Nichols v. Brown brought by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry which seeks to overturn California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public as well as the two recently enacted bans on openly carrying unloaded firearms in public.

    Mr. Nichols case now heads to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court judge ruled in favor of Attorney General Harris concluding that there is no Second Amendment right, anywhere in the state, outside the interior of one’s home, not even on one’s own private residential property. The district court judge also concluded that firearms fall outside Fourth Amendment protections even in the curtilage of one’s home, a place the Supreme Court has always held is subject to the same Fourth Amendment protections as is the interior of one’s home.

    Should Mr. Nichols case go on appeal to the US Supreme Court, the Court will have an opportunity to decide whether or not it really meant what it said about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry can be banned.

  • Bill Crawford

    Just because they make a law doesnt mean WE THE PEOPLE have to follow them!

    • sardis

      Yes it does. People don’t get to pick and choose which laws to follow. That’s not to say that every law on the books is a good law, but if you’re willing to break a law, you must be willing to accept the consequences of what will happen if you get caught. In the mean time, you can vote for people who feel the way you do (or run for office yourself), join advocacy groups, protest, and write letters.

      • 203engr

        Sardis: I will waste no more time on you. My guess is that you have a fresh new degree from one of the institutions of higher indoctrination, and live in your parents basement. You are what we call: AN EDUCATED IDIOT WHO IS EDUCATED WAY ABOVE YOUR CAPABILITIES. You just haven’t figured it out yet. And you never will.

        • Sardis

          I am college educated. I work full time and support myself. I enjoy a great relationship with my aging parents, but I do not live with them. Tell me, what is it about my life that invalidates my opinions? The fact that I am educated? The fact that I don’t need to write in all caps to make my point? The fact that I don’t make assumptions about you, the way you make incorrect assumptions about me?

          The idea of “rule of law” is that the law applies to everyone equally and is enforced equally. That means that you don’t get to come up with the bright idea that a law is bad, so you don’t need to follow it. This isn’t to say that all laws are good laws, but it does mean that you can reasonable expect consequences when you violate the law.

          I don’t think that the idea of “rule of law” is something to come out of your so-called “institutions of higher indoctrination.” It’s a basic idea of civil governance that predates even this country.

  • Buford

    The SCOTUS is not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is. It is simple enough for the common man to understand, and is not subject to change by arbitrary interpretation designed to force a meaning which fits a private agenda. Free men must and will resist decrees from prostituted robes.

    • Sardis

      Tell me…Do the police need a warrant before they can search your home? What standard of proof do they need in order to get a warrant? Is segregation Constitutional? Do you have the right to an attorney if you get arrested? Does the First Amendment allow you to start a riot? Does it let you shout fire in a crowded movie theater? Does it matter to you that these questions be correctly answered?

      These are just a handful of complex Constitutional questions that have been answered by the SCOTUS over the years. Saying that the Constitution “is simple enough for the common man to understand” betrays a lack of understanding. The words on paper are, yes, easy to read, but there is a reason that scholars dedicate their lives to the study of Constitutional Law. There is a reason we need the Courts.

      • Buford

        To shroud the document in complexity that was never there is a betrayal of the authors and a basic principle of our law that the standard may be understood by everyone alike. Yes, men have spent lives and fortunes twisting, reinterpreting, and inventing loopholes to suit themselves. Some have spent lives trying to keep them from doing it. If we are entirely dependent on the courts to tell us we are right or wrong after the fact, then there would be no point in trying to abide by law before being charged for a crime. And some people do behave in that manner, making no pretense in trying to comply when laws and regs become an out-of-control beast, which, instead of serving and protecting the innocent, serve men who seek to enslave. When one does not know what to do, cannot know what to do, and cannot rely on “experts” who never agree, one simply does the best they can and hopes not to be dragged down the unreliable halls of justice. However, There are some principles, so basic and simple, that even us stupid “We the People” may understand and know when judges need to be removed. I am with Ted on this one: The Constitution is my permit. It is natural law acknowledged and codified. When the robes are out of sync with it, and legislate by reinterpretive modification, they need to step down or be brought down. I don’t care which high-brows and low-brows desire to debate it, attach strings to it, or strike it down. You’ll have as much success stopping time as you will defying an inherent right.

        • Sardis

          Life is complex. Actual situations where we need apply our laws are often complex. The First Amendment, for example, is but one sentence long:
          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          Does the First Amendment specifically answer any questions you have about hate speech? Inciting riots? Yelling fire in a crowded theater? Libel and slander? Protesting soldiers’ funerals? No, of course not. To say that the “Constitution is your permit” is to ignore all the different ways that the document could be interpreted.

          The Amendments are general principles–important ones, but certainly general. One role of the judiciary is to apply these general principles to messy, complex, real-life situations. Your concern about “experts who never agree” is solved by the judiciary: We vote for and appoint authoritative legal experts who do have the final say on how the Constitution applies to day-to-day issues, and we call them judges or Justices. You can disagree with them if you want, but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

      • Bill Kelly

        When under threat of physical harm, kill the bastards and take your chances in front of a jury.

  • Mark Stockman

    The Nine have left Minas Morgul. On May-eve they Crossed the Potomac River, disguised as judges in black. They will find the Banner of Freedom, and kill him who carries it.

  • Rodney


    The current rogue federal government and it’s myriad alphabet agencies led and staffed by unelected asinine bureaucRATS does NOT represent ME.

  • Bob

    Can’t sanction a God Ordained thing – especially when the puppets and all of their kinds are in danger if enough people grew STONES and carried whether the government said it was okay or not because ONE day unless they can control the demolition as on 911 with the three towers – there will be another sound heard around the world – and if we were ALL armed and some how learned about the truth of the shenannigains – there’s gonna be a old of corpsus & this is just a mitigation side step of trusting in the god of luck.

  • Ron Foreman

    The Constitution was written to protect us from government like this…

  • Buck Torre

    total loss of faith in our judicial system I believe the nsa must have info on the judges that make them puppets to obozo-WE WILL NEVER ALLOW THE CONSTITUTION TO BE CHANGED -LEST CIVIL WAR COMETH YOUR WAY TO THIS GREAT COUNTRY WITH GREAT PREJUDICE-MOLON LABE

  • Joe_Redneck

    Isn’t just having to live in New Jersey a “justifiable need”?

  • Cajun812

    “Justifiable need”, as interpreted by both “original intent” and common sense as imminent threat by individuals, groups, organizations, oppressive authority, tyrannical government, wild animals, zombies and aliens! Self defense is a Natural Right and not one “allowed” by “cunning, ambitious and unprincipled” men and women making careers living off of the Peoples’ money by perpetuating crisis.

  • John A

    Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 30.06 right in the doorway. I left 6 shells beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.

    While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of our house.

    After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn’t moved itself outside. It certainly hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so.

    In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.

    Either the media is wrong or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

    Well, I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.

    The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the bottom for Murders. These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States.

    ALL 4 are controlled by Democrats.

    It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data?

    • Sardis

      First: Other than the mailman coming (which I assume you know about by the mail having arrived), how would you have known who passed by your house when you weren’t actually there?

      Second: Your anecdote, if true, doesn’t prove anything except how irresponsible you are. I could start a campfire in my backyard, leave it unattended for an hour, and come back to find it hasn’t spread or started a larger fire. That doesn’t make it safe. You’re lucky no one stole the gun and ammunition that you apparently left unattended for an hour. You’re lucky that some neighborhood kids didn’t start fooling around with it. A gun is a dangerous tool and it must be handled with respect. You’re attacking a straw man when you criticize the idea that guns by themselves can kill people. The real crux of arguments for gun control is that there need to be limits or restrictions on who can have access to a potentially fatal tool, in the same way that there are limits and restrictions on who can drive a potentially fatal automobile.

      Third: I haven’t bothered to check your data on the cities with high murder rates to see if that’s true. I will say that you have reversed cause and effect. The cities you named had high murder rates before gun control laws were passed. Gun control was instituted to reign in the violent crime. From a temporal standpoint, it was not the cause of violent crime.

  • The_INFIDEL_protecting_USA

    I realize that America is now the worlds last and final Plymouth Rock remaining. When America is of no longer a safe haven and the Constitution is of no more; I ask as for what Plymouth Rock can Americans and the rest of the world seek for shelter and comfort against a tyrannical Government now operating without boundaries?

  • Billy Bob Johnson

    It’s about time the high court made a good decision. Good for them.

  • KunTewk

    There are many state in which the majority are garbage. At some point those people that aren’t a** kissing cowards and commies are going to have to move to select states and secede….or you won’t have ANY RIGHTS AT ALL.

    • Sardis

      It’s interesting how we pick and choose the rights which matter to us and proclaim that states which do not support these “rights” are oppressors, commies, cowards, etc.

      For example, you probably think you’re better off in a state with expansive gun rights and that states with gun control are robbing you of your rights. Ironically, the state you want to live in is probably one that doesn’t support the legalization of gay marriage, one of the biggest civil rights issues of our time. I apologize if I’m wrong about you, but I doubt that I am.

      We shouldn’t have to pick and choose our freedoms, but if we did, I would choose a state that freely allows people to who love each other to marry over a state that freely allows people who feel vaguely threatened by one another to shoot and kill each other. Sometimes the priorities of the gun-loving crowd shock me.

      • KunTewk

        I have no connection to you. I’ve been debating and commenting about the plague of Leftism for decades and it only gets worse. I think theirs something wrong with you and Leftists in general. Your brains are wired differently. Arguing these issues is a complete waste of time.
        Separation is the only way. “Nations” in the traditional sense is misery. It is personally painful for me to be around Leftism. It makes me want to tear my teeth out. Leftism is wasting my life.
        Oh to breathe free and around people I choose to associate with !
        I swear I’d move to the bottom of the seas to get away from Leftists !

        • Sardis

          Wow, and I just roll my eyes at people with your views. Sorry we offend you so badly.

          • KunTewk

            No you’re not sorry at all. Save me the H.S. and support breaking up the country so we can get away.

  • Mark Bigger

    Along with much of the govmint the spreem court must go as well, misspelled on purpose

  • justathought22

    what a bunch of disgraceful pansies. they are a bunch gutless wonders. just disgusting.

  • charlie

    the supreme court has been compromised and is no longer worth the material their dresses are made of

  • R. Zoerner

    Oh well, here we go again. SCOTUS does not wish to make a decision on the Second Amendment. It is not that difficult to make any decision about the Second Amendment. The amendment is not very complicated and specifically indicates “Shall Not Be Infringed”. What does the Supreme Court not understand about that. If they don’t want to make decisions or can’t make decisions then we have no use for them and they can step down and be replaced. These government people don’t seem to realize that they work for “We The People” not the other way around. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

  • PaulN

    New Jersey deserves what NJ voted for. If they don’t like having their rights abused or removed, they need only move a bit to the right. It is not up to SCOTUS to enforce their decrees, it is the job of the Justice Department and Eric Holder. It will take the actions of the 30% to reverse this trend if the 70% do not wake up. If you do not know who the 30% refers to think Revolutionary War history.

  • Dempsey Coleman

    As the Soup Nazi would say

  • dan from ohio

    who cares what they say,they are apart of the problem.