Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Our Best Hope or Worst Nightmare?

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

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Of the three branches of the Federal Government in our federal system, the U.S. Supreme Court is either our best hope for preserving the U.S. Constitution and strengthening the Bill of Rights, or it’s our worst fear realized, if the court endangers the Constitution and weakens the Bill of Rights, abandoning the American citizenry to an awful fate.

In his concurring opinion in the New York City gun transport case, Justice Kavanaugh asserts, inter alia, “I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

If Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is meant to give Americans a modicum of hope, he failed miserably. He has merely raised suspicion as to his true motivations and jurisprudential leanings apropos of the Bill of Rights generally, and of the Second Amendment, particularly.

The word, ‘should,’ that Kavanaugh uses, in his concurring, doesn’t mean ‘shall,’ nor does it even mean ‘may.’

Given the reluctance of the High Court hearing any Second Amendment case, even and especially those infringing the very core of it, the prospect of the Court actually taking up another Second Amendment case in the near future is more improbable than likely. Why is that?

The U.S. Supreme Court Reviews Very Few Cases

First, the Court has limited time, given the number of cases that come before it during any term. As set forth in the SCOTUS Blog:

“In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.”

Since the High Court reviews only a fraction of the cases brought to it in any given term, and since the High Court is averse to hearing Second Amendment cases, it will only be on a wing and a prayer that the Supreme Court is likely to take up any Second Amendment case, given the Court’s present composition. And, if it does so at all, it will likely deny cert on any further Second Amendment case this Term because the Supreme Court Term is effectively over in late June, hardly more than one month from now as of the posting of this article.

Note, “A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. . . . The Term is divided between ‘sittings,’ when the Justices hear cases and deliver opinions, and intervening ‘recesses,’ when they consider the business before the Court and write opinions. Sittings and recesses alternate at approximately two-week intervals.”

Moreover, “The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October. . . . The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April [and] All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court’s term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.”

Suppose The High Court Does Secure Four Votes Necessary To Review A Second Amendment Case, What Then?

Second, even if, by some strange happenstance the Supreme Court does grant review in one of the pending Second Amendment cases, in the next few weeks, especially given the impact of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus, one may justifiably ask when will that case be briefed; when will it be argued in oral hearing before the Court; and when might the case be decided? And, most significantly: how will that case be decided?

Given that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh both sided with the liberal wing of the High Court on the New York City gun transport case, that fact alone is a matter for deep concern.

In any event, all of this—from voting to hear a case, to the releasing of a decision in that case—takes an inordinate amount of time and, with a General U.S. Presidential election coming up in November 2020, an election just around the corner, both the liberal wing and conservative wing of the High Court may have their own good reasons for not taking up another Second Amendment case this Term.

Consider the ramifications of the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, both on the eventual composition of the Supreme Court and on the manner in which a Second Amendment case would be decided.

Supreme Court Justices, no less than average citizens, do surely manifest deep concern over the outcome of the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. And whom it is that wins the election will be able to actuate one or the other of two alternate, incompatible, radically distinct visions for the Nation.

One vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Individualism, championed by the Founders of our Free Republic, and actualized in the Constitution that the States, in existence at the time, had ratified. That Constitution is the blueprint of the structure of our Nation, where the people themselves are sovereign: a notion manifest in no other nation in the world despite talk, for example, by the rulers of the EU, holed up in Brussels, who govern the nations comprising the EU. These “elites” talk endlessly, and disingenuously, and deceptively of the EU’s liberal democratic values. But that is nothing more than flimflam and flummery.

The second vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—a term that is wending its way more frequently into political discourse, as the Radical Left talks carefully, non-critically, and often glowingly, about the benefits of life in both the EU and in the Autocratic, Communist Collectivist regime of Xi Jinping of China. See Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “The Modern Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies, posted October 6, 2018.” Note: In that article, we point to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which, at the time of the posting of the article, had just occurred.

Would that we knew then what we know now, having seen Justice Kavanaugh’s insipid, seemingly groveling, duplicitous Concurring Opinion in the New York City Gun Transport case. We said, at the time:

“With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists’ vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a “Living Document,” susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country’s independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.”

The Most Important U.S. Presidential Election Of The Last Two Centuries Is Upon Us

The principles of Collectivism were anathema to the founders of our Nation; and those principles are wholly incompatible with the Constitution the framers designed, predicated on the tenets of Individualism, the foundation of our Nation. The two political and social philosophies, Individualism and Collectivism, cannot be reconciled. And those who wish to implement the principles of Collectivism in our Nation know this. That is why they talk openly of major amendments to the Constitution.

Indeed, some Collectivists talk of doing away with the U.S. Constitution altogether, as it would be far easier to draft a new Constitution grounded on the principles of Collectivism than to try to reconfigure the original Constitution, grounded as it is on a completely different set of precepts: those of Individualism. And we will be headed in a very disturbing direction if the Collectivists do succeed in taking firm control over the reins of Government.



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
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago

@Roger Katz, I must disagree with “… First, the Court has limited time,…” Over the many years the S. Ct. has developed many techniques to reduce their case load. Their case load is so light that justices stay in their positions until they are in their nineties, have horrible ill health, and many of them seem to find time to hit the lecture circuit and teach classes in foreign countries. We let them get away with controlling their own schedule, and case load, and let them hire a huge number of clerks. We need to be more demanding of our… Read more »

Arizona Don
Arizona Don
1 month ago

Guns have been legal in the United States of America since the inception of this nation. Well over two hundred years. Many states now have constitutional carry. That is as it should be. The second amendment does give every American citizen the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say those arms must be visible at all times or cannot be concealed or that you must have a permit. It just says keep and bear arms. It does not say hand guns or long guns. Just keep and bear arms. It also says the second amendment shall not… Read more »

Tek_180
Tek_180
1 month ago

Anyone really worried about the Supreme Court when we can riot and loot for justice? The left has just set the course for any freedom loving American. Democrats don’t worry about the law why should I.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

In California, an unconstitutional law remains as law until proven in court to be invalid. It’s part of a skewed system that’s stacked in favor of the government. Lower courts and their judges when presiding over matters of Constutionality usually has two outcomes: 1. Rule in favor of the government. In this case, usually end of story with a possible appeal. 2. Occasionally a lower court will rule against the government. The state typically for whatever reason, cannot or will not abide by any lower courts decision and will almost certainly end in appeal or a stay. The state has… Read more »

Boz
Boz
1 month ago

Who needs the Supreme Idiots! The 2nd Amendment is its own defense.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 month ago
Reply to  Boz

The entire Bill of Rights is but that can slowly, and drastically, change. That’s what is happening now.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  loveaduck

@loveaduck – Not so slowly. Rate of erosion has increased dramatically this year.

PMinFl
PMinFl
1 month ago

Maybe we should be careful of what we wish for,… we might get it. We (gun people) wish for review of 2nd Amendment cases and assume that the decision will go”our way”. What if the SCOTUS decision kills what we have already, what if the 2nd is judged moot,out dated not applicable to today’s modern life? It’s a fight that has no predictable outcome….we might lose. Just a thought.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 month ago

What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” do they not understand?

Ram
Ram
1 month ago

With the exception of justice Clarence Thomas, these SCOTUS idiots
only source intent as far back as what was fashionable in their college days.

Hankus
Hankus
1 month ago

As long as Roberts is in a position to be a swing vote, our country is in trouble. RBG needs to go out to pasture.

Jonesy
Jonesy
1 month ago

According to John Roberts the First Amendment doesn’t mean what is written

Bill
Bill
1 month ago

I’m going to say they are the latter. Kavanaugh is a sleeper. We have only 3 “friends” on that court. I’ve tried to tell you all that these people come from a different planet than we do. They grew up in a different world and they have different views, beliefs and values, and use different logic. They obviously don’t use The Constitution to make their decisions.

Relic
Relic
1 month ago

Kavenaugh is a natural born beta male pansy who has long ago sold his balls to the DC machine when he started pandering to the lefts sexist politics by hiring”all women as staff because I’m Brett Kavenaugh & I don’t want leftist sickos thinking I’m unwoke” ,to sell away principles in exchange for being considered progressive is also what Roberts does on such a regular basis that hes now trying to co opt Kavanagh to be his lackey that is supposed to vote with the activist fascist judges,so much so that he scolded him when siding with libtard Newson &… Read more »

Oldvet
Oldvet
1 month ago
Reply to  Relic

Wasn’t he roberts clerk at one time?

Carl up North
Carl up North
1 month ago

I’m afraid the once praised Chief Justice has decided to come full out of the closet.

Baldwin
Baldwin
1 month ago

SCOTUS…our best hope…our greatest disappointment.