By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Finally showing its hand on a case that’s been relisted time and again over the past several weeks, the Supreme Court today announced it will not hear Friedman v Highland Park, a challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance against the possession, sale and purchase of politically incorrect semiautomatic firearms and standard capacity magazines.
Petition DENIED JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)
“Because the brief order denying review of the ordinance contained no explanation, there is no way to know why most of the Justices chose not to grant review.,” Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog observed. “It did not seem to be a response to recent mass shootings, because the Court has been studying the case since early in October…”
“Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case,” Justice Thomas explained in his dissent (scroll to page 12 of the linked order list document) ““The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions … There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”
What this means is places that do so relegate it continue to be free to ignore the clear proscriptions of the Second Amendment and to punish Americans who refuse to comply.
This will also embolden other states and municipalities to maintain and/or enact similar bans, confident that government avenues for redress will remain blocked.
What it also means is the perception any of the justices who joined with the majority may be “conservative” is illusory. The abdication of principle by Chief Justice John Roberts was telling, although the contorted “logic” he pulled out from under his robe to give cover to Obamacare should have been all anyone needed to divine the man’s true loyalties. Likewise, Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy proved to be a big government man, and considering his benefactor's gun sentiments, again, that's hardly a surprise. Also revealing was the absence of Samuel Alito from the dissent, particularly after his nomination was opposed by anti-gunners calling him “Machine Gun Sammy” for his legal opinion that banning machine guns is the purview of the states, not of Congress.
Highland Park and other places leave the field with their bans intact. It’s now up to them to enforce their edicts, and up to gun owners to decide if they will surrender and obey, or defy and refuse to comply.
In truth, the outcome does not surprise me. As I have maintained for years:
SCOTUS, of course, has been ducking this issue for a long time. They'll probably take the path of least resistance again, and refuse to hear such cases. However, if they accept either Seegars or Parker, I believe the court will not dare say there is no individual rkba. But if they find there is one, it will be so heavily burdened with “reasonable restrictions” as to ensure the status quo. They'll never admit the truth unless someone, that would be us, has enough power to compel them.
That's because any honest reading of founding intent and prior precedent would have no choice but to concede the “in common use at the time” qualifier cited in DC v Heller in turn relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a short-barrel shotgun could not be determined protected under the Second Amendment because the court had no evidence its possession had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
That’s the key point being ducked. The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia did not assemble on the green bearing clubs and spears. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.
That's the inheritance those who would rule don't want the people even finding out about, let alone claiming.
Also see: No Decision Yet as Supreme Court Relists Gun Ban Case
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
SCOTUS rulings on the nation’s gun laws, like their rulings on ‘Universal’ health care are a pain in the SCROTUS.
There is actually no need for the SCOTUS to re-hear this type of case. In the 1939 “Miller” case, the SCOTUS clearly ruled that the 2nd. Amendment specifically protects firearms that are particularly applicable to military use, or are in common use by the world’s military forces. There is no possible question that so-called “Assault Weapons,” semi-automatic rifles and pistols, and “high capacity” magazines, are currently the standard issue weapons to US, as well as all other nation’s, military forces around the world. Therefore, the 2nd. Amendment MUST protect those types of firearms. If the 2nd. Amendment protects possession and carrying of those types of firearms, as it does according to the precedent set in the “Miller” case, then those types of firearms must be specifically exempted from the “reasonable restrictions” ruling the SCOTUS later vaguely referred to.
The famous “Miller ” case, involved a man named Miller, who was convicted of having a “sawed-off” shotgun. He appealed his conviction on the basis that the 2nd. Amendment was violated by the law regulating the possession of such guns. The SCOTUS found against him, and justified their ruling with the rationale that the 2nd. Amendment’s “militia” clause applied specifically to weapons that were in common use by military forces, or were particularly applicable to military use, which “sawed-off shotguns” were not (hence, sawed-off shotguns COULD be restricted-ie, this restriction was a “reasonable” one). The case is remembered primarily for its defense of the 1934 law restricting ownership of certain types of firearms; however, there is no real question that the SCOTUS ruling ALSO found that the 2nd. Amendment specifically protected military style firearm ownership by the general public.
So, there is no need to “re-try” this issue, as it has already been decided by the SCOTUS, and if their precedent setting ruling is applied to lower court cases (as it should be), it must be found that ALL laws restricting ownership or carrying of “military style” firearms are unconstitutional, and therefore, null and void, from the time of their passage onwards.
Just another group of American Government who failed 5th Grade American History. In Vuet Nam Combat I learned all bout “body counts”! So lets get down to business, just what is an American Citizen’s life worth? 1:1? 100:1? A 1000:1? My hope is that when they come to take my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AWAY, tgat Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Dummiecrats come to take it. Like I told a bunch of Black Thugs who had me cornered in a parking lot one night, there are 14 of you, I have 13 shots, who wants to die FIRST?
Nine people who do not have a clue what their oath of office was about. They are all stupid enough to think it
is about their feelings, or opinion.
Another loser from Richard Pearson of ISRA & Donald “Todd” Vandermyde, NRA contract lobbyist for IL. The day Dr. Friedman trusted Pearson or Vandermyde is the day he lost his case, and now every gun owner in the United States has lost everything.
Pearson is the “man” who used and betrayed Otis McDonald, and Vandermyde is the rat who put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps “good” “NRA backed” HB183 carry bill, so police criminals like Jon Burge and police impersonators like John Gacy can execute armed citizens at will. What a team we have in IL: a bumbling idiot with Bryl Cream in his hair and a martini in his hand, an NRA lobbyist whose former boss is in federal prison, and an ignorant hick Klansman state Rep. from southern IL in the pocket of police unions. Yee-haw!
The worse they make it the more likely that original intent will go from hypothetical argument to outright necessity.
The next Presidential election is the most important in our Nations history. We can continue down the path of destruction set forth by this Idiot King of ours by electing Hillary or Barry, or we can elect someone from the Republican side. Keep in mind, the next President will more than likely install two Supreme Court Justices over an 8 year term. Do you want them to be Constitutionalist’s or more Ginsburgs?
One more Democrat in the Oval Office and it’s all over but the crying.
Excellent and well-stated article!
Molon’Labe Freedom’s Vanguard:
Revisit Miller… The Court said that “absent a showing that a sawed off shotgun is a militia type weapon”…
Miller did not show for the hearing, he was dead the other defendant could not be found. the attorney didn’t “Show” the short barreled shotgun was a militia type weapon. Of course we know the militia used al sorts of weapons. The British even adopted a civilian application if the long gun called a rifle because of a rifled barrel, See historical reference on Ferguson’s Rifles. Miller has been misapplied ever since. There was no restriction until the NFA and there was no Constitutional Amendment allowing the regulating of arms. The term “well regulated” in the Second means well drilled in movement, unit operations, mass fire and the like, See the Federalist Papers on this matter which have been used 291 times in Supreme Court cases as guiding and intent as well as over 1500 times in various treatise and other authorities.
Then we have the matter of the Adams and the Hancock. These are two of the four original 3 Pound guns, field artillery, possessed by the colonies at the onset of the Revolution. They were returned to the “several citizens of Boston who owned them after the war by Henry Knox, First Secretary of War by order of the Congress. It is historical fact and documented one gun is in Minute Man Park in Concord.
The Civilian Navy called “Privateers” furnished privately owned and armed ships numbering nearly 2000 with over 14,000 mounted canon and swivel guns while the Official Navy possessed 64 ships with only 1200 mounted canon and swivel guns. The information is in the United Stated Maritime Museum.
Those in the Court simply refuse to acknowledge the truth of the documented history of the United States because it is not in step with their rhetoric and the constrained and limited knowledge they use to render their rationalization. They rule according to the precedent of other courts regardless of the ruling that are totally unreasonable, contrary to historical evidence and documentation. They simply do not want to admit that they are wrong. Plain and simple.
This is the reality of our current system. It has seized extra constitutional power and refuse to give it up and will do anything they can to make resistance to their tyranny futile and impossible.
They should be called SCROTUS, not SCOTUS, as they are just an empty sack without the stones to do what is right.
I used to worry about pending gun control legislation and court decisions. NO MORE! I was made a felon by the stroke of a pen in 1994, and my position was reaffirmed in 2013.
There are many of us across the nation that have said, “ENOUGH!!!” and are participating in the Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance. Rates of non-compliance are 85% in CT and 95% in NY. State officials have blustered that they would “aggressively enforce” the new laws, and to date have only prosecuted a handful of criminals. They DARE NOT do what it is they would have to do for full enforcement, because the bloodshed and body count on both sides could not be tolerated. Therefore, we continue to:
DEFY-DECEIVE-EVADE-RESIST-SMUGGLE
The lawsuits against the government are failing due to unconstitutional rulings in rogue courts by judicial activists, or by simply not taking up the case. It amazes me how they will contort logic and The Constitution to make up rights, and perform those same types of gyrations to try and deny those rights that are God given and spelled out pretty clearly in The Constitution. Therefore, we will simply ignore what they pass, rendering it NULL & VOID!
Their move. Simply put, if they come for our anti-tyranny tools, WE WILL KILL THEM.
No ones life, liberty, property or freedom is secure while democrats are in power!
SCOTUS is supposed to interpet the Constitution as written not as some Democrat nanny. They need to step down if they can not do their JOB.
A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court
December 22, 2012 By Mitch F. 3 Comments
–
Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.” The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly.
Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal.
–
Our journey begins with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The law imposed a tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppression devices and other destructive devices.
The NFA was challenged before the Supreme Court in 1939. Jack Miller and Frank Layton had transported a double barrel shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The firearm was not registered nor was there a tax stamp affixed order for the gun as defined by the NFA. The District Court struck down the NFA on Second Amendment grounds. On hearing the case (United States v. Miller) the Supreme Court overturned the lower court and held the NFA to not violate the Second Amendment.
–
The primary reasoning of the Court was that automatic weapons and short-barreled weapons bore no relation to the needs of the common infantryman at the time.
–
From the ruling: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
–
Further, the Court found “that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
In subsequent references to Miller (of which there are seven), the Court has repeatedly held this basic principle. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess those guns that would be used by infantryman to defend our freedom.
–
There have been challenges to the nature of the right Miller defined. United States v. Warin and United States v. Oakes are most prominent. The Court’s rulings had painted a picture where the Second Amendment was meaningless. Under the rulings of Miller, Warin and to notes in Oakes, the Court protected neither a right to keep arms for personal defense nor a right to keep arms to be used in a citizen militia. I am hard pressed to understand what exactly the Second Amendment was protecting in the years leading up to 2008.
In 2008 the Second Amendment received its first direct review since Miller. District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns for self defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
–
Heller, however, left the question of incorporation open. This was settled two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago when the Court extended the individual right to all citizens of the United States via the Due Process clause. The ruling struck down the Chicago gun ban and cleared the confusion regarding Heller’s application to the states.
–
Taken together, we see that the court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (Heller) of all citizens (McDonald) to guns relevant to self defense (Heller) or guns that bear a relation to individual service in the militia at a given time (Miller).
–
AR-15
At the time of Miller, the official primary infantry arm was the United States Rifle, Cal. 30 M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand. This gun had an 8 round magazine and was a gas operated semi-automatic action. That is, for each time the trigger is depressed, one round (shot) is fired. While officially adopted in 1936, it was not fully deployed until 1941. Many soldiers at the time of Miller were still issued the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle. Both of these guns sported barrels in excess of 22″ of length.
Today, the modern infantryman is equipped with M4, which is a derivative
–
M249
of the M16/AR-15 line of guns. The M4 is a carbine with an overall length of 33 inches and a barrel length of 14.5 inches. The stock is adjustable for length, it is issued with a 30 round detachable box magazine and a flash hider. The gun has three fire control modes: safe, semi-automatic and 3-round burst. The M4A1 which is issued to certain squads has a different trigger pack: safe, semi-automatic and fully automatic. In addition, in a ten-man squad, you will see two men equipped with M249 Squad Automatic Weapons System, a light machine gun. General officers, medics, and other non-combat personnel in a combat zone are issued a Beretta M9, a high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic handgun for personal defense.
–
If the description modern infantry guns sounds familiar, it should. They are the very weapons at the top of the list that certain members of congress want to ban. But, they are also the very guns called out by the philosophy of Miller, as protected by the Second Amendment.
The Truth About Assault Weapons
The AR-15 rifle. It is the most popular rifle sold in the United States today. Millions have been sold to American citizens since 1963.
Let’s go through these gun terms just for the heck of it here, for what it might matter. “Assault weapon.” “Assault rifle.” There is no such thing. Go to a gun store and tell ’em you want an assault weapon, and the guy will look around and show you his entire inventory and say, “Pick one.” But there is nothing — no brand, no label — that identifies the weapon as an assault rifle or assault weapon.
There’s no such category.
It has been manufactured, invented, purely for political-agenda advancement reasons. The term “assault weapon” first began being used in the early 1990s by people opposed to the Second Amendment. There was legislation in 1994 that banned “assault weapons,” and they had a definition. What they did was simply repeat a bunch of cosmetic features. They talked about single-action, dual-action triggers and so forth.
HOPLOPHOBIA
A modern scourge.
>
Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.
>
Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted about their condition, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Sometimes helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization,” a useful methodology in treating many phobias.
>
Hoplophobic behavior is often obvious from self-evident irrational responses to real-life situations, and is frequently seen in the news media and public debate. When a criminal commits a crime using a gun, hoplophobes often seek to disarm, or make lists of, innocent people who didn’t do anything, a common, classic and irrational response.
>
The idea of creating an enormously expensive government-run 90-million-name database of legitimate gun owners — which by definition would not include armed criminals — is a prime example of an irrational hoplophobic response to the issue of crime. How writing your name in such a list would help stop crime is never even addressed. (See, “The Only Question About Gun Registration”)
>
An effort is underway nationally to have hoplophobia recognized in the DSM, the official directory of mental ailments. Resistance from elements in the medical profession suggest this may be quite difficult, but that does not reduce the importance of recognizing a widespread, virulent, detrimental mental condition commonly found in the populace. The actual number of undiagnosed hoplophobes is unknown, but believed to be in the tens of millions.
>
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunPhobia.htm
“The presidency – by which I mean the executive state – is the sum of total American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while its steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, the business, the charity, and the community.”
-Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute
The SCOTUS has decided to stick its collective head into the sand, ignore the question and it’ll just go away? “Infringe”??????? They’re trying to hang a tail on the end of a period and call it a comma. I call BS
[W3]
I wouldn’t trust any gun related issues to the SCOTUS as they are ruling uncharacteristic as of late; almost as if something is being held over their heads… so this is a good thing..