U.S. Supreme Court Is A Protector Of The 2nd Amendment, But For How Long?


Supreme Court Washington DC USA iStock-Bill Chizek-1149364911.jpg
iStock-Bill Chizek

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two, and is not to be treated as if it were such.

Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.

And legal scholars get in on the act. One such scholar, Barry P. McDonald, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status.

If true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions for the people’s right to check the power of that Government through force of arms.

McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought McDonald out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as an Associate Justice.

The three Branches of the Federal Government, even in their infancy, had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it.

Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.

There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from. The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one:

A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority.

Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to the insinuation of tyranny. Still, the framers harbored doubt, and rightfully so.

They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized government with a standing army to resist the tug, the urge, the itch, to gather ever more power for itself.

Federal Government Is Subservient To The People

Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent on exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.

The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through the exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.

And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment that continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny.

Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold.

And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grow more insistent.

Imagine, if you will, that Merrick Garland, had been confirmed a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch. Does anyone doubt that the Court would have affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Bruen, against the Petitioners?

And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are apoplectic over that.

Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.

Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy of the Second Amendment and are proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny.

Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become the legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.

Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions, a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.

But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have.

That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that same over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.

In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she asserts her concern.

“I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . .

Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little).

We discuss this problem of history as a component of a presumptive new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen.

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.

Arbalest Quarrel

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just sayin’, our natural human rights to free speech, faith, and defense of ourselves and of our nation aren’t something that we should be patiently depending on courts to affirm, or waiting for tyrants to take away. There are some things that people need to take personal responsibility for, at least among whatever people still take personal responsibility for anything. If we let government decide everything in our lives, then we are slaves. Many people today are eager slaves, foolishly thinking that government will merely take good care of them, and that it has no selfish interest. Life in a… Read more »


We stand ready, we stand united, we stand for America.
Happy 4th to all who cherish the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Thank you to all who serve and have served this country though out history to protect our Rights and Freedoms.
I salute you.
God Bless America.


10-4, Bubba! Thank you. My faith in America is everlasting. Navy ’55-’66.



Because of the Men and women like you and Marine World War II veteran Carl Dekel in above video, we still a have a country worth fighting for.

Thank you.


The supreme court is now a political talking point for both parties which is a embarrassing for most Americans, The democrats like everything else have begun to weaponize the court to do its bidding while attacking it daily. They are poking the highest court in the land at their own demise our country is now under attack from within by the deep state and the global community. The democratic failures continue as the justices are under attack by the democratic left in front of their own homes. The democratic plan is the enlarge the court and pack it with progressives… Read more »


Stop for a moment and think. Imagine had the ruling by SCOTUS gone the other way. There would have been triumphal jubilation by the antis, as well as other assorted leftos. Large numbers of us, but by no means all of us, would have felt demoralized, feeling an opportunity lost forever. Thankfully, this didn’t happen. Shall issue is now and forever the law of the land. I say, “forever”, because with not one, but THREE rulings from on top, civilian gun rights have been enshrined. Celebrate it today. But please, no celebratory gunfire. This isn’t the Mideast.

Last edited 1 month ago by Wass

When SCROTUS fails to protect the 2nd Amendment, then the 2nd Amendment will protect itself.


I hope so.

Say, if we hand in our guns to the government either piecemeal or all at once what will protect us from the government??


First I want to state this. The government of the US doesn’t have just three branches. It has four. The fourth branch has veto power to ANY law on a jury. That fourth branch is mentioned in the first three words of the Constitution. And that branch is the one that decides weather freedom is worth fighting for with deadly force against anyone who tries to enforce tyrannical “laws” on that branch. The ENFORCERS are the issue. No one ever, anywhere had any issue with some moron psychopathic control freak politician, dictator, premier, president, senator, congressman or any other “law”… Read more »

Desert Rat

All government employees at all levels need to read the book “Unintended Consequences” to see what would be in store for them if they side with the tyrannical government instead of We The People.


The author is John Ross and it is available for free on:

A hard cover copy will set you back a couple hundred of our fiat dollars!

I sure wish it would be reprinted in hard copy!

Last edited 1 month ago by Bill

Thank you for sharing the link. I’ve downloaded it and Sent it to some other like minded.


I own an autographed copy. Autographed to the late Aaron Zellman.

PS. John Ross passed several months ago.


The dems/liberals’/progressive’s/communist’s all the same in IMHO.

Want to destroy our system of checks and balances.

One has to remember they lie, cheat, steal as a matter of course in doing so.


“any doubt Roberts & 4 Dems would’ve overturned Heller/McD?”

No. So Amy-Brett-Neil should’ve heard TX et al, not created a de facto state right to steal elections.

Ooooh, lookit all the sock pup downvotes by a coward glow job who can’t handle the truth! OVER THE TARGET, LOL

SCROTUS Big Steal.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r

What the hell are you babbling about?




Stupid are you? I’ll say it REAL SLOW.

1) TX v PA precedent: States can’t contest theft of federal elections by election fraud in other states.

2) Elections have consequences: More Ds & RINOs in congress, senate & White House = more D & RINO “justices” confirmed to bless more anti-gun laws & decrees and overturn pro-gun decisions like Heller & McDonald.

The Hit & Run downvoter sock pup posse is a low-IQ coward who loves gun control.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r

Crickets Chirping, stupe.



Crickets Chirping, Glow Job.


REAL SLOW for you:

*TX v PA precedent: States can’t fight theft of federal elections by fraud in other states.

*Stolen elections have consequences: More Ds & RINOs in congress, senate & White House = more D & RINO “justices” confirmed to bless more anti-gun laws & decrees and overturn pro-gun decisions like Heller & McDonald.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r

At least 5 low-IQ sock pup downvotes in 10 mins. OVER THE TARGET, LOL


CS Lewis: The Abolition of Man “…We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful…” No doubt the above will be as bewildering as learning that treason has been a favorite American pastime since the founding of our Republic. That Alexander Hamilton was more committed to an American Empire than American Liberty. Its for nothing when Hamilton was slain in a duel when John Adams exclaimed: “the best shot of the revolution.” Or the stupefying cowardice… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by ahhiyawa

Great CS Lewis quote. A few of today’s traitors run a hit & run coward sock pup downvote posse here.


Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Wild Bill

I really enjoyed all three of those paragraphs! Good stuff. Hamilton really was a sneak. He was instrumental in convening the first convention of states that threw out the first American governmental structure and instituting another form of government that he thought would bring him to the pinnacle of power.
Please see “The Quartet” by J. J. Ellis.


Available to read free on Archive.org


the attacks on rights have been growing from the civil war on remember only people with property had rights courts expanded that to everyone government has been trying to retract it ever since
all the gun laws should fall they all fail any test 1934 act was to stop gangster war created by prohibition , when I was a kid dry goods stores ,hardware auto parts fw woolworth all sold guns hell they were out on the shelves at the 1001 store in grand isle vermont not behind the counter

Last edited 1 month ago by swmft

Bought my first deer rifle at a Western Auto when I was 15 years old. It was a Marlin 336 30/30. Walked in, pointed to the one I wanted, put my money on the counter and walked out with the rifle and 2 boxes of shells.That was almost 50 years ago. We had rifles and shotguns hanging in the back windows of our pickups all the time. Including at school. Never once had a problem with a shooting of any kind. Different world Better Parents and more
Respect and Discipline when you weren’t Respectfull.


Got mine at 12, also at Western Auto. Only grief I got was my dad thought he could have got me a better deal.


bought a Winchester 410 from western auto,was well made and a 410 no serial number would be a “ghost gun” today great for snakes and rodents with slugs would stop a black bear or take a deer
time warp away

Last edited 1 month ago by swmft

Until about 1965, you were able to just as easily buy a rifle or a shogun in NYC. I’ve even seen customers do that at the sporting goods store across from city hall. All that, as you know, has changed. What is most unnerving, 2A advocacy is confronted by anti-gun extremists who believe that the 2A was a bad mistake by our nations founders. Go figure.


and the anti gun people are nuts will attack with violence, almost had to shoot one in stop and shop as luck was on my side chief of police was in line and tackled the guy and arrested him I think they are crazy and think everyone is like them


Actually it was a world where people weren’t drugged up because of their sex and hormones. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/06/mark-reynolds/list-of-45-different-murders-and-pharma-drugs-they-were-on/


Two thumb’s up.
It all comes back to parenting and community.
My buddy thinks it’s MKUltra 2.0 being used on these kids.
I think it’s to much time of nobody paying attention.

Also not allowing Leftist ideology to undermine the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Wouldn’t be surprised, but they probly don’t even need to:

* Permissive parenting for 3 generations.

* Laws & officials treat spanking as ‘beating’, discipline as ‘abuse’.

* Corporal punishment outlawed in school.

* Big Pharma, MDs, ‘schools’ & ‘parents’ push drugs on kids for ‘depression’ & new ‘diseases’ like ADD (‘hyperactivity’ formerly known as ‘childhood’ plus boredom-unease due to crap gvt-school teacher-groomers).

* Low-life rap-tattoo-drug cultures glorified.

* Gvt-school: Indoctrinate, groom, twist minds.

These things together make mass murderers.


$100 says Crimo’s the product of all the above LIBERAL bullshit, despite his dad’s pro-Trump, pro-2A comments. I know permissive conservative parents who fell for it and ruined their kids, though they didn’t kill anyone. Vast majority of kids whose parents fall for it end up more or less damaged but relatively harmless. Only takes a tiny % becoming mass murderers to keep it in the news every few weeks.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r

The Glow Job sock posse’s busy today.


Public executions will slow this stuff down.
Nothing better for prevention then watching 18-22 year olds shit themselves as the bag goes over their head.
It will make others think twice.
Who wants to be remember for crapping themselves.

Will make for good commercials. To prevent future issues.

“Taste the rainbow”


Removal, tar and feather all of them