United States Supreme Court Declines Two Gun Rights Cases

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) today called for "military-style" guns to be locked away at gun clubs only. Foster is not one to shy away for calling for more gun control.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) today called for “military-style” guns to be locked away at gun clubs only. Foster is not one to shy away for calling for more gun control.

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- The United States Supreme Court declined to review a Maryland law that banned a large number of semi-automatic rifles including the AR15 which is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US as “weapons of war,” and a case involving the open carrying of a firearm in a holster out of Flordia.

Back in February U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond upheld Maryland's 2012 “assault weapons ban” by a vote of 10-4 in the case Kolbe v. Hogan. They ruled that so-called “assault weapons” are not protected under the second amendment of the US Consitution. This ruling went further than any other court has gone to this point in regards to The Second Amendment.

In the decision of the majority ruling, written by Judge Robert B. King, it went as far as calling semi-automatic, like the AR15, “weapons of war.” Judge William B. Traxler Jr. who wrote the strongly worded decent said the court has, “gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.”

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) stated that it was, “unthinkable that people could say that those weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment.” The type of rifles that are banned, AR-15 for example, are not used by any military in the world.

The US Supreme Court had not stepped into the gun debate since 2010 when it ruled that people had the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. It has rejected every other review of every gun law even though 21 state attorneys generals asked the Supreme Court to review this case.

Maryland enacted their draconian law in response to the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in New Town, CT. Rahm Emanuel famously said, “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste.” Maryland didn't let the murder of children by a crazed gunman go to waste by politizing the shooting to get this law past.

The Supreme Court did not comment on why the court decided not to review the decision of the 4th Circuit Court in this case. Many gun rights activists were hoping the decision of the 4th Circuit would be reviewed by the Supreme Court since the law and the 4th Circuit Court's decision stood on shaky legal ground.

In a second case out of Flordia, Norman v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court also refused to hear the appeal. This court case was about the constitutional right to open carry a firearm in a holster.

A Florida man, Dale Lee Norman, was arrested in Florida in 2012 for open carrying a firearm while walking down the street. Florida allows for the carrying guns outside of the home, but Florida requires the weapons to be concealed by the wearer with a valid concealed handgun permit. Norman, who at the time of his arrest had a clean record, was challenging the constitutionality of this law.

Open Carry Protest Texas
Open Carry Protest Texas

According to Crane v. Department of State, Florida views the right to carry a firearm outside the home as a privilege and not as a right. If Norman had been successful in his appeal, this would have had a ripple effect that would have forced other states such as South Carolina and Illinois to change their laws on the open carrying of firearms since their requirements are almost identical to Florida's law.

The United States Supreme Court also did not offer any comment to why they turned down the review of this case. It is unclear why they have refused to review decisions in court cases involving firearms.


About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at www.crumpy.com.

  • 35 thoughts on “United States Supreme Court Declines Two Gun Rights Cases

    1. has anyone here ever read the DICK ACT OF 1902?
      that act CANNOT BE REPEALED, AND GUN CONTROL IS NULL AND VOID BY THAT ACT.
      it’s really an act explaining the difference in the MILITARY, NATIONAL GUARD, AND MILITIA.
      just type in dickact1902.com i think you will be surprised.

      1. Yes,however seeing as how strictly the US Constitution,the supreme law of the land is adhered to,what’s another law on the books.

      2. Jim: Not surprised but also, unfortunately, you’re relying on a law that is easily defeated under the most casual of scrutiny. Your argument should be that no matter what laws are passed they cannot (or at least should not ever) take away the inherent rights that human beings have to defend themselves. Further, when speaking of the Second Amendment, it guarantees nothing. It simply reaffirms Rights already granted us. These rights, by their design, and reaffirmed by the wording in the Second Amendment, allow us the means to keep a malevolent Government from taking over and ruling.

    2. John, wash your mouth out with soap and remember that taste the next time you start to type the word “gunman’. That word should never, ever be used by a pro 2A person. Never. Ever.

    3. Don’t these bone heads ever read the Constitution of The United States of America? The Constitution belongs to the people, it restrains government, giving them their proper place as serving the people. Any government, city, county, state, federal has no authority to state which firearm you may or may not own. The 2nd amendment guarantees the rite of the people to have the arms of the day, to protect this nation from invasions and bad government.

    4. The Supreme Court lacks an enforcement power or agent. The SCOTUS is like your maiden aunt telling you to be good boys and girls.
      A time line can be useful…
      1775 The unorganized militia formed to resist the British at Concord and Lexington. The Revolution started.
      1776 The Declaration of Independence is written and signed, The British now have names of the rebels who pledged their wealth, property, lives and honor. The list of government excesses pales when compared to today’s taxes, regulations, surveillance and repression.
      In 1858 SCOTUS said that citizens of any state could travel to any state bearing arms singly or in company. DRED SCOTT
      In the 1880s SCOTUS said that the right to keep and bear arms was not granted by the Second Amendment and that the right did not depend on the Amendment for its existence CRIUSHANK
      1939 T Court said they did not know much about the Second Amendment so they REMANDED the MILLER case for the trial to gather evidence they could study. They used the phrase, “not within judicial notice.” The Court was sure of one thing only, that the militia was expected to appear bearing their private military grade arms of contemporary type. The Court erred in one way, they failed to include an injunction against enforcement of the NFA so the government has been pretending that SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of NFA and the Court has never gone back and revisited the MILLER case when they have had the chance during other Second Amendment cases.
      The Court has stated that “the people” is a term of art used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to describe individuals.
      In the HELLER case in 2008 and McDonald in 2010 Scalia DID NOT SAY that gun laws were constitutional, rather he warned that the Court had not studied the issues, except for the limited issues of Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and storage requirements and in McDonald. Until the Court actually considered and rules on the issues, the unconstitutional gun laws are still on the books and you can be arrested, convicted, fined and become prohibited.
      The Seventh Circuit after McDonald applied the U.S. Constitution to the State of Illinois which banned open carry and concealed carry and ordered the State to pass a constitutional gun law within 180 days or all the laws would become unenforceable. Illinois passed a shall issue concealed carry law and maintains a ban on open carry. Illinois has a non-resident CCW but will not even accept an application unless a person is a resident of only 4 states. That is a violation of the 14th amendment but the 7th Circuit or the SCOTUS has not looked at the follow up on their court rulings and opinions.
      Certainly laws that penalize for using a gun or any other weapon during commission of a crime are proper but just making a law against possession of a gun is not constitutional.
      Laws against magazines, ammo, bullets, gun powder are all laws against “ARMS” and thus those things are protected arms as covered in the constitution.
      To make it easier to understand and include all parts of the Second Amendment that the anti-gunners think we are ignoring, try this…
      a slight paraphrasing….
      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? [Yes, therefore]
      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      1. The 2nd Amendment was written by James Madison and George Mason. Both gentlemen made it clear what their words and intent were. Both were called upon to appear before the various legislatures during the Constitutional ratification process to explain their words and intent and to make their case. Their appearances were recorded in the legislative minutes. They also communicated with a wide range of people, including other Founders. Following their presentations, the states approved the 2d Amendment and ratified the Constitution. Then they included the words of the 2d Amendment in their own state Constitutions, and this trend continued as new states were added.

        Since the words and intent of the authors still exists for us today, there should be no question on the part of SCOTUS for they have the best source evidence in documents of the authors and of the several states.

        The 2d Amendment, is a guaranteed right of the people and has been since the earliest days of the nation. Like all rights, it is supposed to be recognized and guaranteed by the government. Prohibition, on the other hand, has never been a right, yet the progressives of the time were required to seek an amendment in order to institute it, and a second amendment to repeal it. If the 2nd is to be repealed, the modern day progressives should seek an amendment. Why don’t they? Because they know it would never pass. Just as they knew in 1934 when the National Firearms Act was instituted using the same lame excuses of “public safety” and which never met that goal.

        That the government recognized and guaranteed the right conferred by the 2d Amendment is evidenced in many ways. Following the Revolution, the colonists returned home with their firearms. Following the Civil War, the soldiers of the south were released to return home with their personal firearms upon swearing an oath to the Union. Surplus firearms have been sold by the government to the public. Soldiers were permitted to retain the firearms they carried in battle, a tradition which today only applies to general officers side arms.

        The evidence already exists. There should be no questions from SCOTUS, from the Legislature, or any other entity. And no state has the right to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it will follow and which it will ignore, and which citizens it will represent and which it will deny rights to.

    5. A lot if people are saying that then4 conservatives on the Supreme Court are deliberately waiting for a liberal to die and Trump appoints another conservative
      Then they will accept some gun cases and we will have a 2nd amendment win
      The Maryland assault rifle ban is joke, written by people who know nothing about guns
      The Steyr Aug was banned by name
      Later, the Tavor was introduced and is legal in Maryland
      AK 47’s are banned
      AK 74’s are ok
      Galil Ace is ok as are VZ 58 and AK 47 pistols with a Sig brace
      30 round magazines can be bought out of state and imported and are legal to use
      AR 15 in H Bar is o k
      AR’ s in all other calibers are ok, so AR 10, CMMG Mutant and LAR 47 are all legal
      Mini 14 and 30 are ok as long as no folding stock
      So go ahead and blast away Marylanders!
      We in Florida will have to primary out our RINO state senators and pass open carry in the state legislature

    6. Gun control advocates have many allies entrenched in our government. The “big 3” are the FBI, ATF, and the DOJ. These agencies are embedded with Obama holdovers and Clintonites who have positions of authority within. They fully understand “shall not be infringed”, but choose to ignore it. It’s a mystery to me why P-Trump tolerates these LibTards who oppose 2A rights at every opportunity. They have help from the lower courts, and now possibly the highest court. We, the electorate, are to blame for this. We continually elect the same corrupt politicians over and over with the same result….a corrupt government with a corrupt Judicial branch. I hate saying this, but the anti-gun politicians and groups are winning. Sure, we get a little victory now and then, and we celebrate it as a big step forward. It’s actually a pittance to the decisions we lose. I also notice that P-Trump rarely brings up 2A rights. I doubt his sincerity on the 2A.

    7. Does SCOTUS now have no guts to do their job and is afraid of the liberals and gun control crowd? They just played right into their hands and we are now in great danger of losing our 2nd Amendment right. To me this cowardly act of turning down this case means the gun banners can pass any laws they want banning any guns they want and then the 2nd Amendment no longer exists just like they planned. It makes me wonder if they’re getting paid off as bad as that sounds. I thought with President Trump in office and appointing conservative justices like Gorsuch we’d finally end all this gun control crap. I guess not. We might as well have Hillary there appointing liberal judges as the liberal Appeals Courts will now use this to uphold all the gun ban laws.

      1. @Doug and Charlie, The majority of the S. Ct has a social engineering agenda that they want to impose. We have to do our part by sending non-party hacks to Congress to support President Trump’s S. Ct constitutionalist picks. Then one of the S. Ct. libtards has to retire or pass away.
        I think that Trump is smart enough to keep his mouth shut on Second Amendment Civil Rights issues so as not to stir up the uncommitted 20 percent middle of the road voters. Just guessing.

    8. So here again, we preach to ourselves. This gets us nowhere. As long as the voters keep electing politicians that have contempt for the rights and freedoms that are embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we will continue to lose them. Now it appears, even with the appointment of Judge Gorsuch, the Supreme Court is not t he friend of the 2nd Amendment. Unless president Trump has the opportunity to appoint several more like Gorsuch, the day will come when the Democrats will take the majority again. Once that happens, gun ownership as we know it (or as it should be) will be lost forever. Just ask those who live in Blue states like California, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and Hawaii. They have lost their rights and will NEVER get them back again.

        1. The progressive social engineers on the S.Ct are swamp creatures, too. The key is the primary elections and caucuses. We must take them over by surprise. Defeat the party picked puppets, and send swamp drainers to Congress.

    9. As most have seen through out history ‘words are cheap’ and ‘oaths are cheaper’….debating the Bill of Rights with the ‘commie politicians’ of today and yesterday, is a fruitless and waste of time. It only gives them the ‘legitimacy that they seek and hardens their position…The courts are ‘fixed’ to the ‘commies view point’….the remedy is not easy and will never be…..any person that believes they are correct in their stand on our Bill of Rights and our Constitution..IS the enemy of the State…and someday soon will be tasked to defend that stance with the physical means available to them…since no ‘commie politician’ and their minions will EVER agree to obey their oath….and will use the ‘force of government and its law’ to impose their will upon those that choose to resist …TYRANNY….History does repeat itself….as many will soon see….may God bless those that stand for freedom and liberty and may he Damn those that do not….imho

      1. I wished I could locate a article I read some four years ago that claimed that very thing,that the founders children were the first.
        From my reading of Unshackling America the rancor started in George Washington’s first cabinet and seeing as hindsight is always 20/20 is human nature.

    10. Damn. Here in Virginia we are under the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit and this idiotic ruling. For the second time in a row, a liberal anti-gun executive slate has been elected. This one worse than the last. It looks like we just squeaked by with the legislature, which will prevent any anti-gun bills going through. It also means there is no way anything more pro-gun gets through. Should AG Mark Herring, after Terrible Terry threw him under the bus on the reciprocity issue, try to take a reinterpretation page from Maura Healy, we could see that damn 4th ruling biting us in the ass as bad asit does in Maryland.

      1. You are correct on all counts, and he will try to push his agenda.
        Once the SCOTUS got scammed on the NFA and became a group of interpretationists of the Constitution, rather than the arbiters of whether laws abided by it, they lost the moral authority to hold their jobs since they had then violated their oathes of office. The result is what we are seeing today and will see in the future.
        Unintended Consequences by John Ross and RKBA82, the The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary should be on everybody’s reading list. The full text of the second can be found at RKBA but almost nowhere else. This is unlikely to end well.

    11. Wild Bill

      What most 21st Century Americans simply do not grasp is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to to give rights to the citizens of our then-new nation, but was instead written to tightly constrain the federal government.

      The Founders had just won a long and brutal war against a far-away foreign government, and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were locked in a power struggle on just how much power the federal government in a swamp on the Potomac River would be allowed to have. The Federalists were concerned that the federal government would be anemic and far too weak to be of any use at all, while the Anti-Federalists wanted the power to remain where they felt it belonged, with the states, so that the people in each state could determine what is best for that state’s citizens.

      The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to placate the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, and was mean to be ten strong chains binding down the then-puny federal leviathan to prevent future abuses.

      The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written by Founding Fathers who understood the right to bear arms as a natural human right that the Creator bestowed upon each and every human being. How can there be any other right, if the right to defend your life is not the most paramount right of them all?

      They almost felt it silly to have to codify a natural right that was so obviously self-evident to them, but knowing that a federal government unchained is a federal government tyrannical, they ratified the basic human right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
      However in 1868 the 14 th. tied it to the states as well,the founders would have thought it silly as to subvert The Peoples essential Liberty as we find ourselves in todays state. GMB

      1. @GMB, Yes, George Mason was most brilliantly prescient. I can’t argue with that. Anything I wrote would be a mere quibble. And when, I ask just for fun, did the Constitution start getting subverted? And who did it?

        1. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.” Patrick Henry

          He also said

          “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

          However I think it was a quote attributed to Mr.Franklin that sums up who is most responsible ,We The People.
          We have done a rather lousy job of keeping it.

          “Well, Doctor, what form of government have you given us?

          “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
          ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention. GMB

          1. @GMB, Yes, we have done a lousy job of keeping it. I believe that the first instance of subverting the Constitution was Marbury v. Madison, wherein the S. Ct created for itself the power of judicial review. Judicial Review is a fiction. The Constitution gives the S. Ct no such power, and now a days the S. Ct has, incrementally, gotten away from doing everything that the Constitution directs the S. Ct to do. There has never been a clearer case of “I’m going to do what ever I please, and you can not stop me.”

        2. FDR or maybe Wilson.
          In 1939 SCOTUS said a few words about the National Firearms Act and the Second Amendment when they remanded the MILLER case. The Court said they did not know many details. Since the Arkansas Federal District Court Judge had dismissed the case, declaring the entire NFA to be unconstitutional “it was not within judicial notice” meaning there was no trial record of testimony to be reviewed.
          But the Court was sure of only one thing.
          (quote) Page 307 U. S. 179
          The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
          The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” 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. (end quote)
          This “quote” is from a summary which is not complete. It appears that the words, “their private” arms or perhaps “personal weapons or arms” since finding the actual 1939 MILLER case SCOTUS opinion is difficult, only summaries that are modern opinions of what some person says the Court said.

          But the 1939 SCOTUS seems to have said that military arms are protected and they didn’t have any evidence [saying “not within judicial notice” which is why the case WAS NOT DECIDED but remanded].
          So 40 years ago they attacked Saturday Night Specials because that was the type of gun they could demonize. Now the attack ARs and other semi-automatic [self-loading] firearms saying that weapons of war, military weapons, have no place in civilian hands despite te fact that the AR is the exact arm that is protected.

    12. @GMB, our God given, Constitution enumerated Civil Rights, also, limit the State governments by operation of the 14th Amendment. Otherwise what good would a God given Civil Right be if the several states did not have observe them?

    13. Seeing as how the Bill Of Rights is to limit the federal government,not the several states or We The People,what is so difficult to understand in the sentence “Shall Not Be Infringed”.

    Leave a Comment 35 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *