Opinion
Justice Neil Gorsuch recently laid down the law for federal judges who think they can ignore the Supreme Court. “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” he wrote, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It was the third time in just weeks the Court had to slap down judges who refused to follow precedent on Trump administration policies.
That’s the Supreme Court doing its job—reminding lower courts that the Constitution sets up a hierarchy, and their rulings aren’t optional. The justices were blunt: when the Court decides an issue, it “commands respect.”
So here’s the question every gun owner should be asking: why doesn’t the Supreme Court show the same urgency when states openly defy its Second Amendment rulings?
Bruen: A Victory Undermined
In NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), the Court struck down New York’s century-old “proper cause” requirement for carry permits. The message was simple: the right to armed self-defense doesn’t stop at your doorstep. Yet New York responded by rewriting its law to impose “good moral character” tests and declaring vast swaths of the state “sensitive places” where permits are worthless.
As AmmoLand’s Roger Katz put it, “In plain English: they gave SCOTUS the middle finger.”
New Jersey, Maryland, and California followed the same playbook—pretend compliance while effectively restoring the very restrictions Bruen outlawed. Instead of defending its own precedent, the Supreme Court shrugged and let cases like Antonyuk v. James languish.
No emergency orders, no sharp rebukes, no defense of citizens caught in the middle.
A Double Standard on Rights
The contrast is glaring. When lower courts blocked Trump’s move to cut NIH diversity grants, SCOTUS rushed in. When a district judge tried to override deportation policies the Court had already cleared, Justice Elena Kagan herself said, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”
But when states openly defy Bruen, the Court looks the other way. If NIH grants affecting a narrow portion of the population are important enough to warrant emergency intervention, why aren’t the rights of millions of Americans trying to defend themselves in dangerous cities?
The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Yet the Supreme Court’s silence has effectively treated it as one.
Rights Delayed Are Rights Denied
Every day the Court fails to act, New Yorkers, Californians, and others are forced to navigate an unconstitutional maze just to carry a gun legally. Katz warned that “a right delayed is a right denied.” He’s right.
If the Court won’t enforce its own decisions, what’s left of Heller, McDonald, or Bruen? Without consequences, anti-gun states are emboldened. They’ll keep layering on new restrictions, betting that the Court will dodge again.
The Founders made clear that the right to bear arms is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. Leaving it to rot through inaction invites exactly the kind of creeping despotism they feared.
Time for the Court to Step Up
Justice Gorsuch is correct: judges can’t pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions to obey. That principle doesn’t stop at NIH grants or immigration—it applies to the Second Amendment, too.
The Supreme Court cannot let its landmark rulings be reduced to “meaningless words on paper.” If it won’t defend the Second Amendment with the same vigor it defends bureaucratic decisions, then states will keep trampling the rights of their citizens.
It’s time for the Court to step up. If SCOTUS doesn’t enforce Bruen, then the Second Amendment will already be halfway gone.
About Tred Law
Tred Law is your everyday patriot with a deep love for this country and a no-compromise approach to the Second Amendment. He does not write articles for Ammoland every week, but when he does write, it is usually about liberals Fing with his right to keep and bear arms.
We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?
SCOTUS Is Letting New York Run Wild on Your Right to Carry – Where’s the Outrage?
Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care
Agreed. SCOTUS will go through hell and high water for Trump’s right but not We The People’s Second Amendment rights. Since 2008 the lower courts has thumbed their noses at the Heller and Bruen decisions. My case Grant v Rovella the 2nd district appellate court in NYC told the Heller/Bruen decision to go pound sand in their 67 page ruling last Friday 8/22/25. So SCOTUS I ask where’s the big cojones for We The Rights since 2008?
The current administration and courts are removing the 2nd amendment by their actions. The Militia to fight tyranny is being dissolved. The Supreme Court by allowing infringements to stand against private citizens. Trump by Federalizing the National Guard. 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in — under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United… Read more »
Their siIence wiII CAUSE 1776.
“why doesn’t the Supreme Court show the same urgency when states openly defy its Second Amendment rulings?”
Because we allow the 2nd Amendment to be treated like a 2nd class right. We are responsible. All of us over the last 234 years.
HLB
The current people in power are coming after the 2nd amendment. They are allowing the loss of both types of militia. Trump and the courts are only 2A friends when it benefits them. How? Federalization of the National Guard and allowing laws to stand that remove gun rights from individual citizens. 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes U.S. Code Notes prev | next (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who… Read more »