Anti-Gunners Breathe Collective Sigh of Relief After Supreme Court Decision

U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA
U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The liberal wing of the High Court sided with Respondent in the New York City gun transport case. No surprise there. The liberal wing of the Court detests the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing. Robert’s vote gave the liberal wing of the Court—Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan—the critical fifth vote needed to secure victory for the Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Bill of Rights crowd. A huge disappointment, of course, but no surprise there either, unfortunately. The two-page majority opinion went unsigned.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote a comprehensive and scathing thirty-plus page dissenting opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, joined Justice Alito, in rebuking the majority’s decision.

Oh! Let’s not forget the legal opinion of President Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh.

The anti-Second Amendment, antigun crowd need not have worried itself over Associate Justice Kavanaugh, after all.

Associate Justice Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing majority on behalf of the Respondent New York City. Kavanaugh’s decision provided the Court’s majority with a sixth vote. And that is odd! Kavanaugh did know, of course, that jurists, attorneys, academicians, and lay Americans would perceive his as intellectually dishonest; and justifiably so. That explains why Kavanaugh apparently felt the need to write a separate opinion at all; to clarify an odd finding that neither attorney, nor jurist, nor academician, nor layperson would have expected from him.

But, you would think that having bothered to draft a concurring opinion at all, Kavanaugh would have written a detailed exposition, setting out in particularity the reason or reasons for his unsettling and inapposite decision, having joined Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court. After all, the New York City gun transport case was, as most commentators assert, the first major Second Amendment case to come down the pike since the Supreme Court decided McDonald ten years earlier.*

Moreover, Kavanaugh tends to write detailed opinions, but he didn’t do so here. That is out of character, especially since his decision in the Supreme Court case doesn’t square with the sound and logical and observant and discriminating and comprehensive dissenting opinion he drafted in Heller II when he served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit, a typical stepping-stone to an eventual seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to serve as an appellate judge in 2003.

Yet, Brett Kavanaugh’s usual perspicuity, inclination, even fervor, for detailed exposition, is altogether lacking in the New York City case. Why is that do you suppose?

Justice Kavanaugh provided detailed commentary for his decision in Heller II—a major Second Amendment Circuit Court of Appeals case—but oddly provided no explanation for his decision here in the first major Second Amendment case to be decided by the High Court in a decade (with the possible exception of Voisine) and the first Second Amendment case Kavanaugh had an opportunity to decide once he sat as a Supreme Court Associate Justice.

Kavanaugh’s shoddy and vacuous concurring is perplexing. It is also deeply disturbing and disconcerting since, both in form and in substance, Kavanaugh’s concurring doesn’t dovetail with his earlier prolific, well-reasoned dissent in Heller II.

The seditious Press, while, pointing to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring merely echoes his pronouncements, but eschews doing any analysis of it, seemingly lacking all journalistic alacrity and curiosity. Why is that?

We will consider Brett Kavanaugh’s odd concurring, in detail, in the next several AQ segments. We will deal with the ramifications of that concurring and what it may portend for our sacred Second Amendment right, in the 21st Century.

Is Brett Kavanaugh second-guessing his own jurisprudential methodology and philosophy of the Second Amendment? We do know that the jurisprudential leaning of Supreme Court Justices tends to evolve during the course of their tenure on the Court, but not with lightning speed as seems to be true of Justice Kavanaugh if the NYC case isn't to be dismissed as a mere anomaly.

But, then, is Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring in the New York City gun transport case simply an isolated happenstance, an aberration, or is it an alarming and disheartening precursor of what we might expect from him in the future? We believe this to be a critical question, and, therefore, one worth investigating.

Actually, the New York City gun transport case wasn’t the first Second Amendment case the high Court took up, since the 2010 McDonald decision. There was an earlier quasi Second Amendment case that the Court took up in 2015, five years after McDonald. The case is United States vs. Voisine.

The Arbalest Quarrel wrote about Voisine. We said:

“[Although] a salient issue in Voisine [United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015)] does involve the meaning to be given a word phrase in one particular section of a lengthy federal Statute, [n]onetheless, the Voisine case is the first Supreme Court case to be heard by the High Court that does impact the Second Amendment. [Justice Thomas made that point patently clear in his dissent in Voisine even if the Court’s majority assiduously refrained from even invoking the words, ‘Second Amendment.’] In fact, Petitioners did timely and properly raise a Second Amendment claim in their Briefs to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. And that claim was preserved, and that issue was ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court when it granted Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. Moreover, while the Second Amendment issue was set forth with particularity as a salient issue in Petitioners’ Brief, the Second Amendment claim was not set forth as an issue in the Government’s own Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners. And the Government, in its Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners, addressed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim only perfunctorily, giving little thought to it, seemingly in deference to and happily therefor to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s treatment of it, for the First Circuit dismissed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim outright. United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015).”

You can read the entire opinion, as a PDF Document.



Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Subscribe
Notify of
23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
StLPro2A
StLPro2A
4 months ago

Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan…….need to go on the same hunting trip that Scalia enjoyed. I’ll pitch in a $100 each…….

DICK
DICK
4 months ago

I don’t think at this time we have to worry about Justice Kavanaugh. The new York thing was already made null and void by the New York council. There are bigger fish to fry coming up to the Supreme Court if Kavanaugh fails us then we will have to review Jack Mac’s advice.

Jack Mac’s comment
The Ballot Box, Jury Box, and the Bullet Box are the tools boxes to repair governments. The first two are becoming empty.

jack mac
jack mac
4 months ago

The Ballot Box, Jury Box, and the Bullet Box are the tools boxes to repair governments. The first two are becoming empty.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

@jm, With all due respect to whomever coined that phrase first, they forgot the most powerful of all … the Cash Box.

jack mac
jack mac
4 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@wb, The “Cash Box” controls governments; The other three are for repairing. With respect.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

@jm, The cash box can be used for good or evil purposes, as any other tool. You and I would probably use the cash box for restoring the republic.

Knute
Knute
4 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

The “currency box”, I think you mean. We’ve been through this before. This is an error that must not be allowed to stand. Sorry, but I’ve covered the reasons before, at length.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  Knute

@Knute, No, you covered, and quite nicely, the difference between currency and money. I wrote cash, probably out of intellectual laziness. So what is cash … money or currency. This from Wikipedia (also out of laziness): In economics, cash (/kæʃ/ (listen) kash,[1] or /ˈkeɪʃ/ kaysh in AuE[2]) is money in the physical form of currency, such as banknotes and coins. In bookkeeping and finance, cash is current assets comprising currency or currency equivalents that can be accessed immediately or near-immediately (as in the case of money market accounts). Etymology The English word “cash” originally meant “money box”, and later came… Read more »

Knute
Knute
4 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

WB. I think you might have missed my bigger point. The terminology has long ago been corrupted, and THAT (the corruption of financial language) is the error I was referring to that must be corrected. You are of course aware that I could retrieve other definitions, if I just avoided wikipedia. Webster’s, for example: “money or its equivalent”. But investopedia says it: “also includes the value of assets that can be easily converted into cash”. Clearly, there is disagreement about exactly what cash is, much as there is confusion about the differences between money and currency. Better to think about… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  Knute

, I think that you missed my point also. Alright, please state, in clear terms, what your bigger point is.

Knute
Knute
4 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

WB: Fair enough. My biggest point, always, is that until the sheeple come to care enough about their freedoms and liberties to learn about the system that oppresses them, they will never have those freedoms. The system will (and already has) corrupted communication to keep them in ignorance. It is to this system’s benefit that those like jack, who think that knowledge and communication is “jibberish”, care not at all for knowledge. Knowledge is power, and until the sheep wake up to that fact, those that know will always control those who do not. My big point is always: the… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  Knute

, I can not argue with that.

Knute
Knute
4 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

WB) And thank you for the opportunity to refine my skills at writing. I’m somewhat poor at getting my meanings across on paper, and I always welcome the chance to sharpen my skills. As an engineer, I rely heavily on real world, 3D type examples to help (perhaps I’m Italian in the mix somewhere, since I do use gestures a lot… 🙂 ), but that isn’t possible unless one is face-to-face with those one is communicating with.

jack mac
jack mac
4 months ago
Reply to  Knute

Knute: Whatever called depleting goodies boxes matched to ever refilling coffers of the enemies of freedom. The vast amount of resources in our country, if not the world, is owned by a few whom most all are rabid anti-gun—Bloomberg, comparably minor in the greedy power group. Financial despots sways our public servants against us. Servants, no longer ours, require dismissal.
So, stop the “currency”/”cash” box jibberish and stock up ammo.

Knute
Knute
4 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

jack:
My ammo stock is long ago completed. Now my goal is to reach those of you who think that proper communication is “jibberish” [sic]. Only then might you learn about the language of money. Communication needs to come first.
Schools call them: “prerequisites”. Basic things one needs to know before more advanced knowledge is possible. Like teaching addition before multiplication in elementary school. There is way to multiply until one can add first!

jack mac
jack mac
4 months ago
Reply to  Knute

Knute: Having communication skills is good. Having accessible, reliable, and unmonitored communications needed. We do not have this communication, because of the media owned by the same few holding the rest of the resources of our nation.

I do not refer to all you write as jibberish, just the bantering over a fabled phrase distracts here from other issues, as liberty.

StandWith Me
StandWith Me
4 months ago

Chief Justice Roberts is just another crappy gift from the RINO globalist named George W. Bush. Chief Justice Roberts serves at the pleasure of RBG and the other socialists on the court. Maybe some day the closet dem judges appointed by “W” will retire and be replaced by real conservative, America loving judges. Have you ever wondered why the Bushes don’t move back to Maine? Maybe Maine doesn’t want them neither.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
4 months ago

If we were living in the 1770’s I would think six of these judges were the King of England appointees and not there to represent the people.
To the average guy it’s pretty simple follow the constitution and the bill of rights and it shouldn’t take more than one page to explain their actions.

Grigori
Grigori
4 months ago

Kavanaugh was one of the biggest frauds foisted off on the American people by Trump, out of many. Kavanaugh is a statist, not a Constitutionalist as some have wrongly said. In a mindf*ck PSYOPS with CIA fingerprints all over it, the dimwitted sheeple fell hook, line, and sinker, for the scandalous character attacks on Kavanaugh by low class women, took the reverse psychology bait, and clamored for Kavanaugh to be appointed. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion used by Turncoat Roberts to “justify” the Obamacare fine, fee, tax, or whatever they finally decided it was. This should have made Kavanaugh wholly unacceptable… Read more »

buzzsaw
buzzsaw
4 months ago

You know, that third box of the four on which liberty supposedly rests is proving to be darn near useless.

Darkman
Darkman
4 months ago

In the minds of Supreme court justices. The 2nd A is as big a threat to Their Power as it is to any Tyrannical Government Group. Be it Republican or Democrat. Ceding the Authority of Your Rights to the Courts,The legislature or the President. Is not only foolish. It is cowardly. When Citizens fear the consequences of fighting for Their Rights/Freedoms…More than They fear the lose of those Rights/Freedoms. They become Subjects.and Tyranny prevails. Keep Your Powder Dry.

Cruiser
Cruiser
4 months ago
Reply to  Darkman

They used to “tar and feather” people who would make such suggestions. Maybe that tradition should be brought back.

Gdubb
Gdubb
4 months ago
Reply to  Cruiser

We also used to hang communists in public. Just saying.