CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS STRANGLING THE LIFE OUT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT—WHY IS THAT AND CAN THIS CHANGE?
U.S. SUPREME COURT GRANTS REVIEW OF THE HAWAII WOLFORD VS. LOPEZ CASE, OF MINIMAL IMPORTANCE, AND DENIES REVIEW OF TWO POTENTIAL LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, NEW YORK’S ANTONYUK VS. JAMES, AND MARYLAND’S SNOPE VS. BROWN.
When a Second Amendment case comes up on a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, this is not a matter to be taken lightly by the Court nor by the American people.
Although the granting of a petition for a writ of certiorari is never a matter of right because the U.S. Supreme Court always retains absolute discretion to accept or deny a petition for review, the Court has crafted its own rule that lays out for a good, i.e., “compelling” reason, and a few of those compelling reasons are set down in Supreme Court Rule 10. Even so, the Court makes plain that it is not obligated to take up a case for even a “compelling” reason as listed in the Rule. And the Court is also not bound by the Rule to refrain from taking up a case for a reason not stated. And there is no recourse for a petitioner.
In any event, one constant in U.S. Supreme Court practice is not a formal Rule at all, but only a convention, a practice, or an informal rule, i.e., one that does not appear in the Supreme Court Rules.
The Court has asserted in its case law that it is bound by the "rule of four." That informal rule ordains that the votes of four Justices are enough to grant certiorari and bring a case before the Court for decision on the merits. If as many as four Justices remain so minded after oral argument, due adherence to that rule requires the Court to address the merits of a case, even if a one or more Justices believe “strongly” that a discussion of the merits don’t belong in the Court.
See Donnelly vs. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974), citing, Ferguson vs. Moore-McCormack, 352 U.S. 521 (1957) re: the separate opinion of Justice Harlan. The Justice discusses the “Rule of 4” at length.
I am in full agreement with what my Brother Frankfurter has written in criticism of the Court's recurring willingness to grant certiorari in cases of this type. For the reasons he has given, I think the Court should not have heard any of these four cases. Nevertheless, the cases having been taken, I have conceived it to be my duty to consider them on their merits, because I cannot reconcile voting to dismiss the writs as "improvidently granted" with the Court's "rule of four." In my opinion due adherence to that rule requires that once certiorari has been granted a case should be disposed of on the premise that it is properly here, in the absence of considerations appearing which were not manifest or fully apprehended at the time certiorari was granted. In these instances I am unable to say that such considerations exist, even though I do think that the arguments on the merits underscored the views of those of us who originally felt that the cases should not be taken because they involved only issues of fact, and presented nothing of sufficient general importance to warrant this substantial expenditure of the Court's time.
I do not think that, in the absence of the considerations mentioned, voting to dismiss a writ after it has been granted can be justified on the basis of an inherent right of dissent. In the case of a petition for certiorari that right, it seems to me—again without the presence of intervening factors—is exhausted once the petition has been granted and the cause set for argument. Otherwise the "rule of four" surely becomes a meaningless thing in more than one respect. First, notwithstanding the "rule of four," five objecting Justices could undo the grant by voting, after the case has been heard, to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted—a course which would hardly be fair to litigants who have expended time, effort, and money on the assumption that their cases would be heard and decided on the merits. While in the nature of things litigants must assume the risk of "improvidently granted" dismissals because of factors not fully apprehended when the petition for certiorari was under consideration, short of that it seems to me that the Court would stultify its own rule if it were permissible for a writ of certiorari to be annulled by the later vote of five objecting Justices. Indeed, if that were proper, it would be preferable to have the vote of annulment come into play the moment after the petition for certiorari has been granted, since then at least the litigants would be spared useless effort in briefing and preparing for the argument of their cases. Second, permitting the grant of a writ to be thus undone would undermine the whole philosophy of the "rule of four," which is that any case warranting consideration in the opinion of such a substantial minority of the Court will be taken and disposed of. It appears to me that such a practice would accomplish just the contrary of what representatives of this Court stated to Congress as to the "rule of four" at the time the Court's certiorari jurisdiction was enlarged by the Judiciary Act of 1925. 2 In effect the "rule of four" would, by indirection, become a "rule of five." Third, such a practice would, in my opinion, be inconsistent with the long-standing and desirable custom of not announcing the Conference vote on petitions for certiorari. For in the absence of the intervening circumstances which may cause a Justice to vote to dismiss a writ as improvidently granted, such a disposition of the case on his part is almost bound to be taken as reflecting his original Conference vote on the petition. And if such a practice is permissible, then by the same token I do not see how those who voted in favor of the petition can reasonably be expected to refrain from announcing their Conference votes at the time the petition is acted on.
My Brother Frankfurer states that the course he advocates will not result in making of the "rule of four" an empty thing, suggesting that in individual cases "a doubting Justice" will normally respect "the judgment of his brethren that the case does concern issues important enough for the Court's consideration and adjudication," and that it is only "when a class of cases is systematically taken for review" that such a Justice "cannot forego his duty to voice his dissent to the Court's action." However, it seems to me that it is precisely in that type of situation where the exercise of the right of dissent may well result in nullification of the "rule of four" by the action of five Justices. For differences of view as to the desirability of the Court's taking particular "classes" of cases—the situation we have here—are prone to lead to more or less definite lines of cleavage among the Justices, which past experience has shown may well involve an alignment of four Justices who favor granting certiorari in such cases and five who do not. If in such situations it becomes the duty of one Justice among the disagreeing five not to "forego" his right to dissent, then I do not see why it is not equally the duty of the remaining four, resulting in the "rule of four" being set at naught. I thus see no basis in the circumstance that a case is an "individual" one rather than one of a "class" for distinctions in what may be done by an individual Justice who disapproves of the Court's action in granting certiorari.”
Also, keep in mind that, that the "Rule of Four" although this informal has been for decades, generally adhered to by the Court, it is not rigidly codified and remains subject to reinterpretation or revision by the Court or Congress. For instance, when fewer than nine Justices participate in the decision, the application of the rule may vary. Justice Douglas once noted that when only seven Justices are present, the votes of three Justices could suffice to grant certiorari. This demonstrates the adaptability of the rule in specific circumstances.
§ 405.03 Certiorari and Certified Questions.
Finally, once a petition for certiorari is granted under the "Rule of Four," the writ is generally not dismissed later by a narrow 5-4 majority. This underscores the importance of the rule in maintaining the integrity of the certiorari process and ensuring that cases brought before the Court are given due consideration . § 405.03 Certiorari and Certified Questions. But see, infra, our discussion of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. City of New York. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this Second Amendment case (the predecessor to Bruen) on the merits, but then, a majority of the Court agreed to dismiss the case on the dubious ground of mootness.
Moreover, generally, if not invariably, and certainly in cases involving the Second Amendment, the staunch protectors of the Natural Law Right codified in the Amendment, will not vote to review a case unless they are certain they have at least three other votes necessary to guarantee a majority ruling supportive of the Second Amendment. Thus, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen were only taken up by the Court, because four votes necessary to hear the case on the merits would not suffice unless at least five votes guaranteed a decision supporting the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Of course, the Liberal wing of the Court that detests the Second Amendment would be all-to-happy to take any Second Amendment case up for review as long as they had at least five Justices who would agree to shred the Right. Thus, going into conference, Justices are well apprised of the positions of their brethren on a given issue, having discussed the matter with others. There are tactics and strategies at work, as in war. And, since many of the Court’s decisions have a profound effect on the future course of our Country, the Third Branch of Government is hardly to be construed as an insignificant Branch of the Federal Government.
The U.S. Supreme Court rule that governs the considerations for granting review of a petition for writ of certiorari is USCS Supreme Ct R 10.
This rule outlines that review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion (a point reiterated in Supreme Court jurisprudence ad nauseum), ostensibly to remind petitioners that the Court need not take up a case, notwithstanding compelling reasons to do so as set forth in the rules that justify granting such a petition, such as conflicts between decisions of different courts or the resolution of important federal questions, among others.
In full, Rule 10 says,
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
The importance of this Rule in understanding the inherent discretionary nature of the Court’s application of its Appellate Jurisdiction cannot be overstated. For, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant or deny certiorari IS INHERENTLY DISCRETIONARY. It is guided by considerations of judicial efficiency and the importance of the issues presented, rather than being an automatic or obligatory process.
The key to understanding the Court’s discretion, when exercising its appellate jurisdiction to grant or deny review of a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10 is that——
the Rule operates MORE LIKE a “JUDICIAL ESCAPE HATCH” ENABLING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DENY REVIEW OF CASES RAISING ISSUES THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC and operates MUCH LESS LIKE A RELIABLE MECHANISM ENSURING PETITIONERS THE COURT WILL DISTINGUISH THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES FROM THE LESSER ONES, AND WILL GRANT REVIEW OF THOSE RAISING ISSUES— THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH—ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A FREE REPUBLIC.
CONCERNING THE LATTER, THOSE CASES THAT RAISE ISSUES VITAL TO MAINTENANCE OF A FREE REPUBLIC, FEW—IF ANY, INDEED, EVEN EMERGENCY PETITIONS FILED BY THE U.S. PRESIDENT—COMING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ARE MORE DEMANDING OF COURT ATTENTION, THAN THOSE INVOLVING CHALLENGES TO STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION INFRINGING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Why is that?
The Second Amendment is a codification of Natural Law. It is the most important right existent in our Nation’s Bill of Rights.
Our incomparable strength, success, prosperity, and uniqueness as a Nation derives from it.
The Right codified in the Second Amendment, IS THE DIVINE PREDICATE upon which the sanctity, inviolability, and autonomy of the individual, “THE COMMON MAN,” and upon which his Sovereignty over Government, all Government, in our Land, rests.
When State action or Federal Government action directly impairs the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, it is incumbent on the U.S. Supreme Court to ascertain at conference the extent to which the impact amounts to action that may involve infringement OF THE CORE OF THE RIGHT, and, if, manifestly, that appears so, then it is incumbent on the Court to grant review of that case.
NATURAL LAW RIGHTS ARE NO SMALL MATTER TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED REVIEW.
THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO SELF-PRESERVATION IS PERSONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL; ELEMENTAL AND ETERNAL; INNATELY DISCERNED, AND IMPOSSIBLE TO RATIONALLY DENY.
All other Natural Law Rights proceed from the Right to Self-Preservation. This Right is readily discernable as a Drive, a Drive to protect one’s life and safety, independence of Self and well-being of Mind and Body from destructive elements, whether those threats arise FROM PREDATORY BEAST, FROM PREDATORY MAN, OR, MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, FROM THE PREDATORY MAN-BEAST OF GOVERNMENT.
Some people may argue that, while the right to self-defense is a natural law right, the right to ARMED SELF-DEFENSE is not. That idea is false because——
THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE (SELF-PRESERVATION) LOGICALLY ENTAILS AND SUBSUMES THE RIGHT TO “ARMED” SELF-DEFENSE.
A Person’s Right to Armed Self-Defense simply means a person has the fundamental, natural law right to keep and bear, on his person, the best means available to secure his life and well-being from a deadly threat, be that threat to life and well-being from animal, another man, or from the gravest threat of all—Government.
Millenia ago, “THE SWORD” was the best means available for personal self-defense. However, in the last five hundred years, with significant advances in technology, THE FIREARM became the best means of self-defense, and it remains so today, refined to the point that the firearm is the eminent instrument for ensuring one’s survival from a dangerous, powerful threat. This is universally true.
Governments of other nations cannot deny this. So, they do their best to denounce the truth and significance of it. They do this to secure their authority and power over their people. Governments’ desire for full control over the lives of their population is an innate trait of all government, whatever the form government takes——
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
REPUBLIC (SUCH AS THE U.S.)
CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
ABSOLUTE MONARCHY
ABSOLUTE AUTOCRACY
THEOCRACY
REPUBLIC (SUCH AS EXISTS IN THE U.S.)
Democracies and Republics, too, eventually, inexorably, tend, inevitably, to devolve into autocracy.
The Founders of our Nation, the Framers of our Constitution, were well aware of the inevitability of any government, even a carefully crafted government, like the United States (Federal) Government, operating by and constrained by an assiduously crafted and carefully demarcated set of checks and balances, as set forth in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution, will gravitate eventually, inevitably, given the nature of government that does not otherwise commence as an autocracy, toward dictatorial rule. And this occurs, despite the most assiduously crafted safeguards employed to prevent such dictatorial rule.
The inevitable result is tyranny, unless an effective mechanism exists outside government to prevent the onset of Tyranny. For, nothing within the government itself, left to its own devices, can prevent the inevitable slide toward tyranny.
As is true of any organization that exercises inordinate power, THAT organization, including, AND ESPECIALLY, GOVERNMENT, can never adequately, effectively police itself.
Some external, powerful, compelling force is required to prevent government from usurping power and authority that had never belonged to it and was never meant to wield it.
The carefully designed, crafted tripartite system of the Federal Government has, over time, slowly given way to a softening of that system, as the demarcated powers and authority of each Branch—confining each Branch to the exercise of specified powers and authority ascribed to each Branch, as assiduously articulated in the Articles of the Constitution, begin to break down, to overlap, coalesce, and merge, as each Branch jockeys for position and authority over the other, or as, with the U.S. Supreme Court, tends toward isolation by actions of the other two Branches, or, having fallen prey to manipulation by one or the other or both Branches (through the nomination by the President, and confirmation by the Senate of individuals, who have little native ability to serve, and who have, demonstrably, no love for the Constitution or for the preservation of a Free Constitutional Republic, weakens, becomes enervated, begins to deteriorate from within.
Curiously, the third Branch of the Federal Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, often denigrated as an afterthought and relatively unimportant by some scholars, retains the most independence within the parameters of exercise of their Article III powers.
But, as shaped by the Chief Justices, both past and present, these Chief Justices often struggle to exercise independence of thought and judgment in the face of political and social pressures, or, more to the point, allow political and social pressures to affect their independence of judicial judgment, notwithstanding that the Third Branch of Government was the one Branch crafted to be and perceived to be by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to be immune from the whims of political and social pressures.
AND THAT IS WHERE THE GREAT STRENGTH AND SINGULAR IMPORTANCE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AS A PROFOUND AND PROFOUNDLY, INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION, RESTS. AND THAT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION HAD INTENDED FOR IT. BUT THAT INDEPENDENCE REQUIRES THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE EIGHT OTHER ASSOCIATE JUSTICES TO BE MINDFUL OF FORCES THAT WOULD DARE TO INTRUDE ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
But, as shaped by the Chief Justices, both past and present, these Chief Justices often struggle to exercise independence of thought and judgment in the face of political and social pressures, or, more to the point, allow political and social pressures to affect their independence of judicial judgment, notwithstanding that the Third Branch of Government was the one Branch crafted to be and perceived to be by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to be immune from the whims of political and social pressures. They are rarely, truly free from the pressures exerted on them by politics and a mindless unruly mob, whipped into a frenzy by all too many callous, corrupt, conniving members of Congress and powerful, well-organized, well-funded, and ruthless NGOs (non-governmental organizations) whose agendas are directed to the destruction of our Republic and the subjugation of our citizenry.
These Justices are rarely, truly free from the pressures exerted on them by politics and a mindless unruly mob, whipped into a frenzy by all too many callous, corrupt, conniving members of Congress and powerful, well-organized, well-funded, and ruthless NGOs (non-governmental organizations) whose agendas are directed to the destruction of our Republic and the subjugation of our citizenry.
AND THEREIN LIES THE CONFLICT, THE TENSION.
The singular importance of and defining feature of the Supreme Court was that of an independent body, unfazed by, undaunted, and unperturbed by the irrational emotional outbursts of the ever-fractious mob, and by whimsical, temporal, temporary, ever fleeting societal fashions and conventions. Our Nation’s Natural Law Rights are not things to be seen of as of a particular time and place—transitory, conditional, subject to the ebb and flow of time. Rather, they are the permanent fixtures of a society—the cement that protects a society that is as perfect as a human artifact can be, and through time, has shown to be, as marked by our Nation’s great technological achievements, our military might, and our economic prosperity. And all of this success can be attributed the one thing that no other Nation has——a TRUE BILL OF RIGHTS, COMPRISING A BODY OF FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, ETERNAL NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.
And of all our Natural Law Rights, THAT RIGHT, codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is the one major factor that defines us, and distinguishes us from all other nations. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS——A RIGHT THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS OFTEN DEMEANED TODAY, BOTH BY OTHER NATIONS AND BY UNINFORMED, UNAWARE AMERICANS. Yet, this RIGHT, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, IS NOT, SOMETHING TO BE RIDICULED OR CONDEMNED, BUT TO BE TREASURED, FOR IT IS THE ELEMENTAL FOUNDATION OF OUR NATION’S STRENGTH AND SUCCESS.
The U.S. Supreme Court, disturbingly, has done little to protect our Nation’s most sacred and inviolate Natural Law Right.
After ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, we have seen few Second Amendment cases granted review by the Court under their discretionary appellate power to review petitions for writ of certiorari.
And, when, reluctantly, the High Court does take up a case, the decision works more often to the advantage of both the States, and the Federal Government, thence, weakening the natural law right to armed self-defense.
The Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cases—all twenty-first century cases—published over a century after ratification of the Bill of Rights, shifted the balance back to where it always rightfully belonged. These three cases were the high mark of SUPREME COURT ACTION since ratification of the Bill of Rights.
The Court greatly strengthened the Second Amendment by striking down state infringement OF THE CORE of the Right as codified in the Second Amendment. Yet not all Justices were on board with this.
These case decisions only occurred through the indomitable will and effort of a few stalwart protectors of liberty: the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and the two remaining senior Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The present Chief Justice, John Roberts, proved no leader in that effort to protect and strengthen a Right. This is plainly seen in the manner in which the rulings of the three Landmark cases presently remain in a state of stasis, today, as both the States and the Federal Government slowly whittle away at the citizens’ exercise of that Right. IS THE COURT BACKSLIDING under the leadership of John Roberts? Is the Supreme Court reverting to a jurisprudential approach that shuns the methodology of strict TEXTUALISM and ORIGINALISM as championed by and utilized with great effect by the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and by the present senior Justices Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, in favor of methodological approaches predicated on JUDICIAL ACTIVISM and so-called LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM, or some hybrid of the two—both of which are less methodologies for serious judicial analysis and decision-making, than political ideological belief systems that are designed to undermine the fabric of a Free Constitutional Republic, and the Natural Law Rights? It would appear so. And this is seen in the desire of some of the Justices to ignore and eventually overturn our Landmark Second Amendment case decisions in order for our law to conform to the laws and norms of the EU.
Consider——
Many a nation, when crafting their “bill of rights,” has adopted the language or a variant of the language proposed by the United Nations.
The language employed creates an illusion concerning RIGHTS and LIBERTY of the people of a nation, and the nature of the POLITICAL GOVERNANCE over them.
The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a contrivance of a duplicitous organization—makes clear the duty of securing the RIGHTS proclaimed in that “Declaration of Human Rights” are those vouchsafed by GOVERNMENT, alone.
These “Rights” are not accepted as things PREEXISTENT in MAN. So, they really aren’t Rights as all, but ad hoc Man-Made fabrications—mere simulacrums, and poor ones at that.
This is plain from a perusal of the language of the “Declaration” and contrary to the manner in which our Nation conceives such rights and the relationship of the American people to Government.
One should note not only what is said, but what is missing from the United Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
The text does not refer at all to any right of the people to possess or carry weapons. Thus, the duty to provide for the life, safety, and well-being of the people rests solely in Government—THE STATE. Thus, the Government (the State) is sole and supreme sovereign of and in The Land, NOT the PEOPLE.
True freedom, then, doesn’t exist in nations serviced by an illusory “bill of rights.” It is all a blind.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
The UN clearly adopts some of the language of America’s “Declaration of Independence,” but none of the intent of that great Document.
The crafters of and drafters of the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” do not take to heart the import of the meaning of our Country’s “Declaration of Independence,” for nothing is said about how that life, liberty, and security is to be gotten and maintained.
Assertion of evocative words sans the requisite intent as to how life, liberty, and security is to be secured, are vacuous.
One is compelled to conclude that life, liberty, and security of ONESELF is perceived by the drafters of the UN’s “Declaration of Human Rights” as nothing more than an invention of the State, not a codification of preexistent Divine Law.
Therefore, anything expressed therein requires the State’s willingness to secure those Rights. In our Bill of Rights, nothing is expected nor wanted from the State per exercise of God-given Rights. It is within the people themselves to secure those Rights, and the Government must step aside.
Government must do nothing (neither Federal Government nor the States) to interfere with the Citizens’ exercise of their Divine Rights.
If the Federal Government or the States do interfere with the exercise of Fundamental, Divine Law, then the U.S. Supreme Court must step in to step in and strike down Government action that interferes with the Citizens’ exercise of their Fundamental, Unalienable, and Eternal Natural Law Rights. This is the way our Constitution and laws and core beliefs are structured.
Of course, GOVERNMENT (THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) often interferes with exercise of our Natural Law rights, and the Supreme Court refuses to step in to constrain unconstitutional, often nefarious, Federal Government or State action, when the Court should step in.
These are failings of Government, but the facts don’t negate the import and purport of our Constitution and Laws. Rather, they shine a bright light on the dangers of Government, serving, then, to emphasize the importance of our Natural Law Rights, and the necessity of Americans to zealously exercise them and call out Government when Government attempts to interfere with the citizens’ exercise of those Rights.
In all other nations, the populations don’t have, a right, as a matter of law, to take government to task when government interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights because those nations make plain that such rights are transitory things—things that are mere creations of government, not eternal truths, and manifestations, springing from the Divine Creator.
Hence, any ostensible “bill of rights” that might happen to be incorporated into the constitutions of these nations is, in effect, nugatory. What the government gives, it retains the right to take away. How, then, can such “rights” be deemed, “fundamental?” In what sense are they “fundamental” any more than the entity that created it, ‘government’—an artifact of man is or can, in any true sense, said to be “fundamental.” The answer, in “no sense.” For government itself is not fundamental. It has many forms. It is amorphous and transitory. Without a cement to firmly set it in the ground, what would keep it from shifting about, tottering, and then falling? That which keeps our Republic from falling is our Natural Law Rights that spring from the Divine Creator, only. The transitory government has a firm, eternal base: Natural Law.
No such TRUE BILL OF RIGHTS exists in the UN’s artifact or in those nations that have adopted a schema from the UN.
Flowery words espousing Rights of Man serve as a blatant act of deception, an insult to one’s intelligence, and an attempt, by the State to mollify the people, “THE COMMON MAN,” and use such reliance of words expressing seeming “Rights of Man” as a propagandistic tool to keep the people obedient, docile, tamed, contained, enslaved in mind, if not also in body.
It is condescension and illusion, nothing more.
If a denizen of such country demurs, insisting that his Rights are not superficial constructs and artifices, but TRUE CONCRETE ACTUALIZATIONS existent in their nation, then ask that person, “How is THAT ‘LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS’ acquired in their country? If these are things bestowed on a person and secured for the person by the State, then what would prevent that State from rescinding that which requires the State to protect? And where is ‘THE KEEPING AND BEARING OF ARMS’ NECESSARY TO SECURE ONE’S LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS’ FROM THAT THING, THE STATE? If, a person declares that keeping and bearing arms is not necessary or even dangerous, then how is it that the keeping and bearing of arms should be perceived is unnecessary or dangerous? And unnecessary to whom? Is it unnecessary to the person because the State provides for one’s security?
And, if dangerous, then to whom is civilian possession of arms dangerous: dangerous to the person because the person may harm himself or others (as the State claims) or dangerous to the State itself because the person would have the means to turn on a State that BECOMES or IS a TYRANT?
ULTIMATELY, IF IT IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT OSTENSIBLY HAS, BY ITS OWN LAW, THE POWER TO GRANT SUCH RIGHTS, THEN IT ALSO RETAINS THE LEGAL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO RESCIND SUCH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, AND, AS THE DESIRE TO CONTROL A POPULATION IS AN INHERENT TRAIT OF THE STATE, THE STATE WILL INEVITABLY, INVARIABLY CHOOSE TO EXERT CONTROL OVER THE POPULATION, AND EVENTUALLY RESCIND SUCH RIGHTS THAT IT DEIGNS TO BESTOW ON THE PEOPLE, IF IN FACT SUCH RIGHTS EVER EXISTED OR WERE NOT, AT THE OUTSET, A MERE CHIMERA.
What, then, does “THE COMMON MAN” have to prevent an arrogant Government from exerting control over the thoughts and actions of its subjects?
Plainly, to effectively secure the RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF MAN requires an armed citizenry. It is the “COMMON MAN”, not GOVERNMENT who bears, in the first and last instance, the responsibility to secure his rights and liberties, and ultimately, he must do so from the very Government/State that claims, smugly, unlawfully, and irreverently, the sole ability and responsibility to protect those rights.
AGAIN, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXIST INTRINSICALLY IN MAN, BESTOWED IN MAN BY THE DIVINE CREATOR. SUCH RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE NOT DESIGNED, CRAFTED, AND MANUFACTURED BY THE STATE.
How far we Americans have fallen when a U.S. Senator would dare to suggest that Fundamental Rights, as with any other Law, derive from Government of Man, not from God, and tries to make his idiotic remarks palatable to Americans by couching them in language meant to deceive Americans by suggesting that our God-given rights have something in common with flawed theocratic systems by virtue that nothing exists but “THE MATERIAL.”
‘The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities,‘ Kaine said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday.
‘They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.
I'm a strong believer in natural rights, but I have a feeling if we were to have a debate about natural rights in the room and put people around the table with different religious traditions, there would be some significant differences in the definitions of those natural rights." Statement coming out of the blue from the mouth of Tim Kaine, an attorney, and U.S. Senator (D-VA).’” See Fox News report and Secretary of State Rubio’s insightful response. '
It is singularly odd that Tim Kaine would add that he is a strong believer of natural law rights. Apparently, he mentions “natural law” rights because he feels obliged to. Yet, he never troubles himself to assert even one of our Nation’s Natural Law Rights by way of example to support his assertion, which should be simple enough to do. That he doesn’t do so, is telling. The only rational inference to draw is that Kaine is lying. Note, the devious words, “I’m a strong believer in natural rights, but. . . .”
The Founders of our Nation accepted as self-evident, true, the existence of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS. They weren’t a banality delivered by a charlatan like Tim Kaine whose mention of Natural Law Rights comes across as mere posturing. CONSIDER WHAT OUR NATION’S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE MEANT TO OUR NATION’S FOUNDERS, THE FIRST AMERICAN PATRIOTS. THE WORDS EXPRESSED WERE NOT MERE SENTIMENTS, BUT PRONOUNCEMENTS OF FIRMLY HELD BELIEFS IN THE DIVINITY OF NATURAL LAW.
America’s “Declaration of Independence” may be taken as a PHILOSOPHICAL TREATISE on the DIGNITY OF MAN, as well it is, but it had much more immediate significance at the time it was written and forwarded to the King of England, George III. Those men who crafted and signed it meant the DECLARATION as an ACT OF DEFIANCE directed to a TYRANT.
IT WAS AN EMPHATIC CALL TO ARMS against both TYRANT and A TYRANT’S mechanism for instituting his Tyranny: The Tyrant’s “GOVERNMENT.” And that is how the Tyrant, George III, took it.
The hidden message of the document—that a FREE MAN must be willing and able to take action to secure his FREEDOM AND LIBERTY—is embodied in our Nation’s BILL OF RIGHTS.
The words of that Document are reflected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But the unstated intent and will and ability to defend those words rests behind words expressly stated. The intent is reflected in what was codified after the American Revolution, in the Second Amendment—THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
George III perceived America’s Patriots, contemptuously, as A DOG that fails TO OBEY its MASTER and must be brought to heel. But George III eventually came to rue the day he acted against that “DOG.” He learned THAT THIS DOG DOESN’T JUST BARK, IT BITES.
Having remarkably won a hard-fought war against a mighty Foe, America’s Patriots found themselves faced with a new arduous task: How to craft this nascent Nation, one that can forestall, if not prevent, the onset of a tyranny once again—one that, ironically, would be one of their own makings.
The Federalists among the Framers, insisted on the creation of a centralized “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.” And they got their way on that.
But, the Antifederalists, knowing full well, that, whatever checks and balances might be placed in the Articles of this new Nation’s Constitution to thwart or retard the eventual insinuation of Tyranny into the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Tyranny would, at some point, return to haunt them because the lust for Tyranny (for absolute control over the people) is embedded in Government.
The Antifederalists among the Framers therefore insisted upon an express “BILL OF RIGHTS” that must be incorporated into the Constitution, upon which GOVERNMENT would have no power and authority—thereby acknowledging that——
THE SOLE AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER NATION AND GOVERNMENT RESTS IN AND WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEMSELVES.
The KEY TO REPELLING TYRANNY IS, THE FRAMERS, KNEW, THE SAME VEHICLE BY WHICH TYRANNY WAS REPULSED THE FIRST TIME——
THE ARMED CITIZENRY.
Thus, the most important NATURAL LAW RIGHT to be included in the Bill of Rights must be THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The codification of the Natural Law Right was set down in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Moreover, the Second Amendment of our Constitution isn’t to be taken as merely one of several enumerated rights, which some misbegotten scholars argue has lost its significance and ought to be removed from the Bill of Rights as archaic, anachronistic, and obsolete.
NO NATURAL LAW RIGHTS IS TO BE TAKEN AS ARCHAIC, ANACRONISTIC, OBSOLETE.
Without codification of the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms as the most vital of enumerated Rights, this Republic ceases to exist.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms ALONE, prevents TYRANNY. It is not only a safeguard against Tyranny. It is THE SOLE SAFEGUARD against Tyranny.
The keeping and bearing of arms is not just a “FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. The RIGHT is also a “FUNDAMENTAL POWER”—THE LAST FAIL SAFE AGAINST TYRANNY, and the singular mechanism by which THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY RETAINS SOVEREINGTY OVER GOVERNMENT.
This being so, one must wonder why the CHIEF JUSTICE, JOHN ROBERTS, ISN’T STRENGTHENING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, BUT SECRETIVELY WEAKENING IT, BY WEAKENING THE RULINGS OF THE COURT IN HELLER, MCDONALD, AND BRUEN AND, IN SO DOING, HE IS UNDERMINING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
These are bold statements, true, but they are not brash. As Chief Justice, Roberts sets the tone and theme of the Court, like those who preceded him. He has significant control over the handling of the cases that come before the Court and the manner in which those cases are handled and resolved. He isn’t merely ONE OF NINE VOTES in the Court, as some people mistakenly think.
Roberts’ actions come noticeably to light in the manner of the handling of Antonyuk vs. James. Had this case been granted review, it would have resulted in the overturning of a set of unconstitutional amendments to New York’s handgun law that has proved to be an impediment to civilian citizens for well over one hundred years.
It is disturbingly odd but consistent with the defeatist trait of so many New Yorkers that they consistently vote into office politicians whose policies are demonstrably detrimental to their personal well-being and safety, and to the well-being of the community.
Thus, “PUBLIC SAFETY,” the province of and responsibility of the Government, and “PERSONAL SAFETY,” the responsibility of the individual, both suffer by bad policies foisted on the public.
When the U.S. Supreme Court published its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) vs. Bruen, in June 2022, striking down the PROPER CAUSE standard, existent in the State’s Handgun Law since 1913, which severely constrained most civilian citizens residing in New York from carrying a handgun for self-defense, an enraged Governor, Kathy Hochul, argued that the Court’s ruling endangered PUBLIC SAFETY.
The incorrigibly obtuse Governor failed to comprehend that the Court had not prevented the Governor from implementing PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES. That is a salient task of the States, and that right and power of the state remains in place.
The Court’s Bruen rulings were directed toward ensuring that any civilian citizen, not under disability, has the unalienable right and duty to provide for his own PERSONAL SAFETY.
Doing so doesn’t erode the duty of the State to provide for PUBLIC SAFETY.
The two duties, PUBLIC SAFETY and PERSONAL SAFETY, therefore go hand-in-hand. The two complement each other.
Yet, a stubborn Governor doesn’t recognize the INHERENT RIGHT of the individual to provide for his PERSONAL SAFETY by possessing and carrying a handgun for self-defense.
This right of the people to keep and bear arms, first set down in the Second Amendment, and then articulated in Heller, next in McDonald, and then in Bruen, is incontestable. Yet, Hochul doesn’t once acknowledge this in her public statements, and she assiduously avoids asserting the phrase, “PERSONAL SAFETY,” as a right inherent in Americans, during her constant bluster and harangues directed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming without proof that an armed citizenry poses a danger to Public Safety. We have heard this all before. And now, as then, it is empty words meant to deceive the populace for an ulterior purpose: to maintain virtually absolute control over the citizenry.
If one were to ask the Governor why she refrains from using the phrase, ‘Personal Safety’ in conjunction with ‘Public Safety,’ Hochul may say either that “PERSONAL SAFETY” (which tacitly embraces the concept of armed self-defense) is either unworkable or that it is redundant since ‘PERSONAL SAFETY’ is subsumed in ‘PUBLIC SAFETY,’ and that, since the duty of providing for public safety is the responsibility of the State alone, it follows that the only people who should rightfully be armed, are police officers (employees of Government who provide for BOTH public and personal safety for the denizens of the community).
But truth be told, New York does a poor job of providing public safety, whatever the manipulation of state and municipal crime statistics might otherwise suggest.
Further, while police officers do have a responsibility to provide for the security of the community, that responsibility does not legally extend to responsibility to ensure the life of any individual member who resides in that community except in very narrow, carefully defined circumstances. Thus, Personal Safety remains and must remain the sole prerogative and responsibility of the individual. And a person so armed, and trained in the use of his firearm, is the very definition of “PERSONAL SAFETY.”
Notably, the fact that a state’s principal duty is to provide for the safety and well-being of a community, generally, that is not to mean the state’s principal duty of ensuring public safety extends to any given member within a community. That fact rarely, if ever, is mentioned by a government official, but it is true, nevertheless.
Of course, if a state does fulfill its principal function of providing exemplary or, at least, adequate public safety for the community it is tasked to serve, then the members of that community will enjoy a measure of personal safety from outside threats. But that does not mean the Government was obliged to ensure the protection of each individual member of the community. It never was. And, if the State falls short of providing for public safety at any point, the members of the public may wonder that they feel threatened from forces that directly and negatively impact them as individuals, but are sad to learn, too late, that the government was never required by law, or designed by policy to protect any individual member of the community. PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS and PERSONAL SAFETY, ALTHOUGH COMPLEMENTARY, ARE FOREVER DISTINCT CONCEPTS EMBRACING A DISTINCT SET OF RESPONSIBILITIES, ONE ACCRUING TO THE STATE AND ANOTHER ACCRUING TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE STATE.
IT IS THEREFORE WRONG TO CONFLATE THE TWO.
The government will, however, tacitly conflate the two concepts, unless prompted by a reporter to clarify the matter, which never happens. But, theoretically, if an astute reporter were to ask a state government official to explain the precise meaning of and nexus if any between ‘PUBLIC SAFETY’ and ‘PERSONAL SAFETY,’ that State official will likely attempt to skirt the issue, or mention something lame and slippery, such as,
“By protecting the community, the police are also protecting the individuals within it.”
The response begs the question whether the government, through the police, are, in fact, protecting the community when the public feels endangered, which is what might prompt the question in the first place. Moreover, a recitation of statistics to show crime rates falling, which is ever the stopgap manufactured by governments that obviously fail in providing even a modicum of protection for their communities, is an abjectly poor and unsatisfactory response to the public that remains at perpetual risk of physical harm from an ever growing number of dangerous predators lurking about in the public’s vicinity, on the prowl for potential victims.
The abovementioned response also ignores the fact that, whether a state government effectively performs its duty to provide PUBLIC SAFETY, that fact does not mean the government has a duty to ensure the PERSONAL SAFETY of each individual member of the community even if highly effective PUBLIC SAFETY seems, at a particular time, to obviate the need for one to take on the duty and responsibility for his own PERSONAL SAFETY.
The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this.
On the subject of police responsibility and sovereign immunity, see the Arbalest Quarrel article posted on our website on October 25, 2019, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on November 26, 2019, titled, “What Is The Duty Of A Community’s Police Force Toward A Citizen Whose Life Is In Imminent Threat Of Attack?”
The article references a 1989 article co-authored by David Kopel and Stephen D’Andrilli, appearing in the magazine, “Women and Guns.”
A reprise and update of the October 25, 2019, Arbalest Quarrel article was posted on AQ on November 21, 2019. See also the Arbalest Quarrel companion article, posted on our website on July 31, 2020, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on August 6, 2020, and titled, “The Government Cannot Protect You!” You Must Protect Yourself!”
What was true, then, is no less true today.
Ultimately, the responsibility for one’s health, safety, and well-being falls to oneself as well it should; and as it always has. And, taking that premise as self-evident, true, the answer to the problem of increasing violent crime in the City is plain.
Personal Safety, meaning armed self-defense, is not only helpful to one’s life and well-being, but critical to survival.
But jurisdictions like New York that have historically opposed the Natural Law Right to Armed Self-Defense, because they abhor the idea of an armed civilian citizen populace, continue to impose a slew of barriers to individuals who wish to exercise their right to armed self-defense.
And, as we have seen with the Bruen case, a State that aims to deter a civilian keeping and bearing arms will attempt to find a loophole around U.S. Supreme Court rulings that demand a State stringently abide by both the Court’s rulings and the strictures of the Second Amendment.
New York, though, is not the only jurisdiction that will knowingly skirt High Court rulings that it doesn’t like.
This happens with regularity, which explains the high incidence of court cases, challenging the constitutionality of state government action around the Country.
Avoidance of Supreme Court rulings is an intractable problem wrought by local and state governments that abhor the Bill of Rights, and, especially, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms. But this is not unusual.
It is in the nature of government to secure power unto itself.
An astute and conscientious U.S. Supreme Court should grant review of all cases that come before it involving unconstitutional, unconscionable actions of wayward states that infringe the core rights of the American people. And no right is more crucial to ensuring the sovereignty of the American people, and the security of a Free State, than THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
Since States like New York, Illinois, Hawaii, California, among several others, have a deep-seated and abiding contempt for the notion of civilian citizen right to armed self-defense, they always probe for a weakness in a High Court ruling they don’t like. This has become increasingly obvious ever since the Court came down with the first seminal decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller.
And, the U.S. Supreme Court acted quickly to counteract a defiant jurisdiction, when the City of Chicago maintained that Heller only applies to the Federal Government, and not to the States.
The McDonald case shredded that idea, but States that continue to have a hatred for the Second Amendment continue to probe for weaknesses in Heller and McDonald.
It is remarkable that a decade has passed since the High Court decided McDonald, as the Court did not take up a further major Second Amendment case until Bruen.
Surely, there were major challenges to State infringement of the core of the Second Amendment, prior to Bruen. Indeed, there is one in particular to take note of: Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, in 2015. It was the first major case since McDonald that came to the High Court, where a local government (as a creature of the State, Illinois) dared to defy a standard established by the Court, involving weapons in common use.
The Court stated plainly that the kinds of weapons that the right of the people to keep and bear arms are those weapons that are in common use, a major matter dealt with in Heller.
The City of Highland Park had banned both ownership and possession of many popular weapons that some jurisdictions designated as “assault weapons” and that individuals could not continue to keep and bear, under penalty of law. On a challenge as to the constitutionality of the city ordinance, the case wended its way to the Supreme Court on a petition for writ of certiorari in 2015. The Court did not grant review of it. Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were justifiably furious. And a vigorous dissent ensued, lambasting both the Respondent Highland Park, and (hardly subtly) the Chief Justice, himself.
The Court could not garner four votes necessary to review the case.
This points unmistakably to the intention of the Chief Justice. Simply, he did not want to generate a ruling that so-called assault weapons are weapons in common use and therefore fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment.
One year after Friedman was denied review, Antonin Scalia lay dead, under mysterious circumstances on a vacation to Texas.
The Press, the Supreme Court, and Scalia’s family, too, buried the event quietly, along with the man. Justices Thomas and Alito were thence cast adrift, having lost an essential co-advocate for the salient Right of The Common Man, and the principal protector of a truly Free Constitutional Republic.
Imagine if the Court had granted review of the Friedman case.
The massive challenges to semiautomatic weapons that we have since seen, would largely have abated. But, because Friedman was denied review, challenges continue to this day.
While similar challenges to overtly unconstitutional state action banning “assault weapons” have since come to the attention of the Supreme Court, the Court has continually, invariably, denied review of such cases. Plainly, constitutional questions that the American public is deeply divided on do influence the Chief Justice’s decision on encouraging the Associate Justices to deny review of such cases. As the presiding Justice, he has great influence on whether petitions will be granted review or not.
Despite his express claims that the Court is not motivated by politics, it is plain that issues that have a strong impact on the public, from an emotional framework, do have a strong influence on Roberts’ influence over the Court concerning which cases to deny review of, despite their clear Constitutional importance.
On Second Amendment matters, the hesitancy of the Court to review major cases is most evident.
The Arbalest Quarrel will deal with the Friedman matter and other “assault weapon” cases that have come before the Court in depth, at a later date.
For the moment, we touch upon Friedman case to support our inference that, apart from Bruen, Chief Justice Roberts has rebuffed all petitions challenging State infringement of the Second Amendment, when challenges to the constitutionality of State action directly implicate the Court’s rulings on Landmark Second Amendment matters. This reluctance to grant review of cases involving state infringement of the core of the Amendment is not by accident.
Looking at the number of and kinds of cases involving the Second Amendment that have come before the Court since McDonald, the Chief Justice has demonstrated definitive hesitation and this can only be the result of the enormous impact such rulings would have in strengthening the right codified in the Second Amendment.
By taking up these cases, the Court would be building upon and clarifying the Court’s rulings and reasoning in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. In so doing the Court would be adding significantly to its jurisprudence in matters devoted to the Second Amendment.
This, the Chief Justice is apparently loath to do.
But, having denied review of Friedman, as that case would otherwise have come down as the Third Landmark Second Amendment case, why did the Chief Justice obviously support review of Bruen six years later?
He knew that the issues in Bruen would have a decisive impact not only for the New York Handgun Law, but for the gun laws of the entire Country.
Roberts would be compelled to join in the majority decision, striking down the guts of the New York Handgun Law.
The rulings in Bruen would significantly add to Second Amendment jurisprudence, building upon Heller and McDonald, and becoming the third Landmark case.
Bruen is not an anomaly.
We believe that Roberts agreed to take up Bruen, not because he wanted to, as Roberts does not have a strong passion for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That, we know. It is an inference we draw from our many years of work.
Roberts granted review of Bruen because he was obliged to do so, having agreed to do so to placate Justices Thomas and Alito who were apoplectic at the dismissal of the New York City case, which was dismissed on dubious legal grounds.
No doubt, Roberts was not amused when Bruen came up before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari, so soon after the City of New York case. But he was forced to vote to grant review of it.
He was pulled along to vote with the majority in Heller, and in McDonald, and no less so for Bruen. Roberts was no leader in this endeavor. He knew that Bruen would become the third Landmark case. And if he sided with the dissent, he would come across as a hypocrite, which is a label he would find personally and professionally repugnant, as well he should, and altogether unbearable.
But Roberts likely let Thomas and Alito know before the fact that he would not take up another major Second Amendment case—certainly not any time soon. Consider, Bruen, itself was granted review, over a decade after McDonald.
Now that Wolford vs. Lopez has been granted review, after denial of Antonyuk vs. James (a direct attack on the Bruen rulings) and Snope vs. Brown (another semiautomatic weapons case), many Pro-Second Amendment people and organizations believe that the deep frost has melted. It hasn’t.
Wolford vs. Lopez, while an important case, as all Second Amendment cases are, isn’t truly significant. In fact, the sole issue in the case involving sensitive place restrictions is of no major significance at all. In fact, however the Court rules in the case, the Court is accepting the tenability and therefore the constitutionality of “sensitive place” restrictions.
The real, pressing question, is whether there state enactment of “sensitive place” restrictions is inherently inconsistent with the Bruen ruling that the right to carry a handgun for self-defense in the public sphere at all.
Recall that, in Bruen, Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, warned the New York Government against turning Manhattan Island into a sensitive place zone, thereby negating the efficacy of armed self-defense in the public domain.
The Hochul Government created a raft of sensitive place restrictions anyway. And that issue is not on the table. Keep in mind, too, that under the old Proper Cause Standard, there were no sensitive place restrictions in the law.
Under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, the Government, a new statute was crafted specifically designating a slew of places as restricted “gun-free” zones that had not previously existed.
Those individuals who were able to acquire the few NYC concealed handgun carry licenses under the old “Proper Cause” Standard truly held an unrestricted carry license, effective for armed self-defense throughout the City and throughout the State.
The new concealed handgun carry licenses are a watered-down license that operates as an ineffective substitute for “Proper Cause” and severely weakens the import of Bruen.
Antonyuk should have been taken up by the Court to deal with the constitutionality of ‘sensitive place’ restrictions as a deceitful action of the New York Government to erase Bruen.
Roberts did both the Right codified in the Second Amendment and the Court itself a disservice by undermining the importance of both.
Granting review of the Wolford case doesn’t obviate this.
Granting review of the case just cloaks the truth about Roberts negative view about the Natural Law Right codified in the Second Amendment.
He intends to quarantine Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, and slowly strangle the life out of Americans’ right to armed self-defense. That, unfortunately, is an inference we hate to draw, but cannot deny.
In our next series of articles, we discuss in depth the City of New York case and the Wolford case, in the context of both the three Landmark Second Amendment cases (Heller, McDonald, and Bruen), and the two subsequent cases that would have become the Fourth and Fifth Landmark Second Amendment cases, Antonyuk, and Snope, that the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of.
The future of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms depends on the U.S. Supreme Court taking up both Antonyuk and a slew of outer cases that infringe the core Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.
Of all the cases, Antonyuk remains the most critical, principally because the case arose as a direct challenge to the New York Government deliberately flaunting the Court’s rulings in Bruen, which directly attacked a critical component of the New York Handgun Law, “Proper Cause.” The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “Proper Cause” standard as facially unconstitutional because New York demanded that an applicant for a concealed handgun carry license provide “extraordinary need” justifying, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, proof of such need for issuance of such license. Few individuals, in any jurisdiction of New York could meet such a standard, which was the point of it.
After the High Court struck down the standard, the New York Government enacted a set of amendments (undoubtedly carefully crafted in the months between oral argument in Bruen (November 3, 2021) and publication of Bruen on June 23, 2022)), as the New York Government knew the Bruen decision coming down the pike would be unfavorable to the New York Hochul Government.
There was every good reason to expect the Supreme Court would take up Antonyuk as the issues had been fully briefed, even if the case remained in an interlocutory state. Still, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the case, perfunctorily, without comment.
What happened thereafter with the case was a mystery. Upon the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari (notably, the Petitioners’ second petition), the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court would send the case back down to the Court from which the petition came. In this matter, the case would be and, we presumed, that the case would go back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. What happened, then, was a mystery. There was no public information as to the status of the case.
If the case were under in an interlocutory state, then the Second Circuit would be required to send it back down to the trial court, which here, is the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. We could find no evidence this had occurred. We then contacted one of the attorneys handling the case, and we learned that the case was, indeed, in the hands of the District Court, and the prosecution of the case had continued.
The attorney with whom we spoke explained that the case was in the discovery stage. We asked for an estimate on how long it would take for the District Court to render its final decision on all the issues in the case that remained in a non-final state.
He explained that this could take years. Considering that the case has taken almost three years to wend its way up from the District Court to the Second Circuit, and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, once again, back down to the Second Circuit, we took the attorney’s comment as completely serious, not at all facetious.
Since the Hochul Government can continue unimpeded to enforce unconstitutional, unconscionable, amendments to the Handgun Law—that were the basis for a challenge in the first instance— the New York Government has at the moment at least effectively won the case. Nonetheless, because the case is very much alive, which is to say, that it is not in a state of stasis, much less dead, as we had erroneously thought, there is hope that, at some point, the case will in fact return to the U.S. Supreme Court on another, now “THIRD” Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. There is a lot riding on this for Americans, in view of the importance of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, on a basic level, but, on another, less noticeable but more emphatic level, involving the relationship between State exercise of its Police Powers under the Tenth Amendment, and the citizens’ natural law right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment (and under the Tenth Amendment, too). These latter matters have never been decided but undergird the unstated but ultimate issue as to just how sacred the Natural Law Right of Armed Self-Defense was, and remains to be. To the Framers of the Constitution, this Right was everything. If our Country truly was crafted as a Free Constitutional Republic and, if it is understood that the American People are the Supreme and SOLE Sovereign over Nation and Government, this demands the ARMED CITIZENRY is the linchpin of a Free Republic, and any attempt to undermine that fact, much less dismiss it out of hand, is to maintain that this Country is something less than a Free Constitutional Republic, and the American People are SUBJECTS of the “STATE,” not THE SOVEREIGN OVER THAT STATE.
Many uninformed Americans are slowly being indoctrinated with the idea that this Nation ought to be a “DIRECT DEMOCRACY,” which means that Americans may simply be treated as a mob to be swayed this way and that by an AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.
The U.S. Supreme Court, the THIRD BRANCH of Government, IS THE ONLY BRANCH that can set things right—to make plain that our Nation, crafted as a TRUE FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, must remain so, and can only remain so if the People remain armed. Let us trust that most U.S. Supreme Court Justices agree with these assertions, as axiomatic, self-evident truths and will grant review of cases and render decisions in those cases that serve to entrench these truths in our Nation’s jurisprudence.
POSTSCRIPT
The Leftist CNN, in an article published on December 31, 2025, summarizes Chief Justice John Roberts year-end report (letter) to the Nation, asserting, in part,
Chief Justice John Roberts touted the independence of the federal judiciary as a “counter-majoritarian check” and urged Americans rattled by partisan politics to keep faith with the Constitution in an annual report Wednesday that steered clear of direct discussion of modern controversies.
Focusing on the Declaration of Independence as the nation turns to its 250th anniversary, Roberts said the founders chafed at the crown’s control of colonial courts and “corrected this flaw” by setting up a judiciary that would operate without interference from the other branches.
“This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well,” Roberts wrote in the report, which was released by the Supreme Court hours before the start of the new year.
[BUT CNN CAN’T, APPARENTLY, HELP BUT ADD ITS JABS AT PRESIDENT TRUMP, BY MAKING CLEAR ITS ABHORRENCE OF TRUMP AND HIS POLICIES [ALBEIT APPROVED BY OVER HALF THE ELECTORATE WHO VOTED HIM INTO OFFICE] AND NOT AT ALL SUBTLY, ATTACKING CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS FOR HAVING MADE NO MENTION OF TRUMP IN THE JUSTICE’S LETTER, AND FOR FAILING TO MENTION THOSE COURT DECISIONS RULING IN FAVOR OF TRUMP’S POLICIES, WHICH, OBVIOUSLY, CNN VEHEMENTLY DISAGREES WITH. THIS STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT CNN ACCEPTS THE NOTION OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY, AS LONG AS THE COURT GOES ALONG WITH A POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA THAT CNN AND OTHER LEFTIST NEWS SITES ARE FIGHTING FOR, WHICH, IF ADHERRED TO BY THE COURT, WOULD EVENTUALLY LEAD INEVITABLY TO THE DEMISE OF THE REPUBLIC].
Roberts’ history-heavy statement made no mention of President Donald Trump, nor the intense conflict that has cropped up between federal courts and the White House since his second inauguration nearly a year ago.
In 2026, the justices are expected to decide whether Trump may end birthright citizenship through executive order, unilaterally impose sweeping global tariffs and dismiss a governor from the Federal Reserve based on disputed allegations of mortgage fraud.
See also the December 31, 2025, Newsweek article reporting on Roberts’ Year-end letter to the Nation. Newsweek articulates the same concerns over actions of Trump as if to suggest that the Court’s decisions that go in Trump’s favor must have been the result of a Court acting, not as an independent Branch of Government, but politically, making sure that the Court’s decisions cohere with the political desires of Trump. Note the constant imbecilic political refrain, of a “constitutional crisis” caused by everything Trump does.
Roberts’ emphasis on constitutional stability comes after a year of intense scrutiny of the courts. Legal scholars and Democratic leaders warned of a potential constitutional crisis as President Donald Trump’s allies pushed back against rulings that slowed his conservative agenda.
On the U.S. Supreme Court’s website, the Court says of itself, that,
“As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
The phrase, “equal justice under the law” is more in the nature of a noble but nebulous aspiration than as a statement of fact. This is as it has ever been.
But, as for the phrase, “functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution,” that phrase is plain enough although the Court has fallen short in regard to it. As guardian of the Constitution, that ought to mean preventing the Federal Government and the States from brazenly intruding on and treading upon Americans’ fundamental, unalienable, Natural Law Rights. What the People require from the U.S. Supreme Court is for the Court to accept for review, not shirk review of Constitutional challenges to State and Federal Government intrusion on Americans’ sacred rights.
Nothing is more important to maintaining the sovereignty of the American People over Nation and Government, and the Security of a Free State, than boldly striking down all instances of State and Federal Government insinuation into our Natural Law Rights, especially apropos of the VITAL RIGHT codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court cannot lawfully review a matter that does not come before it, true, but when a case does come before it on a grand writ—a petition for writ of certiorari—plainly asking for relief from an obvious infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Court is obliged to take that case up, for failure to do so not only offends against our BILL OF RIGHTS, but causes irreparable harm to the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution, leaving both the public and the Court vulnerable to societal upheaval, anarchy, and, thence, tyranny.
Let us hope the Chief Justice Roberts and Trump’s nominees will join the two learned senior justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito who cherish the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, in standing firm to protect that Right for the sake of the People and the Country.
Among the many important cases on the Court’s docket, the Court must not shirk its duty when it comes to strengthening the Second Amendment and its landmark cases tied to it. The Supreme Court is the only Branch of the Federal Government that has the legal, constitutional authority to restrain the Federal Government and the States from running roughshod over the Second Amendment. Let’s hope Chief Justice Roberts comes to acknowledge this and acts accordingly, in 2026, to enshrine this—our Nation’s and our Peoples’ most vital Natural Law Right.
And, in respect to the meaning of the term ‘PEOPLE,’ the Court must not be swayed by those emotional, ill-informed members of the electorate who believe, wrongly, that an ‘American’ who happens to be born on our soil whose mother is an illegal alien, who, by law, owes allegiance to the Country from which that person came. The offspring borne of an illegal alien, is itself an illegal alien, not an American citizen.
The pretense of construing tens of millions of illegal aliens as Americans, who have no understanding of our culture, our laws, our core beliefs, and who visibly detest our Country, is no less than an act of treachery to Country, to Constitution, and to true citizens, that will harm our Country irrevocably. People born of illegal aliens, are themselves illegal aliens. They are not to be construed as Americans in any legal sense or unofficial sense. They are not citizens of our Country, never were citizens of our Country, and must not be construed as such, nor be bestowed with the rights of a citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court must stand firm on this, regardless of the sentiments of anarchists and socialists. The Court must hold that any prior interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by those who ascribe citizenship to illegal aliens grounded on a misreading of and misunderstanding of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” must, finally and plainly, be set aright in the Court’s decision, and the prior, 1898 Wong Kim Ark case must be overturned. A long-standing Supreme Court decision (which was not unanimous), and that was wrongly decided or otherwise thereafter wrongly construed (as the petitioner was born of parents who were “legal residents” of the United States, not “illegal aliens,”), is lame support for compounding the error, especially in light of the devastation wrought to the cultural and economic well-being of our Country with the inclusion, since, of tens of millions of illegals.
Neither the Supreme Court in 1898, nor the States that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, could have imagined or intended for tens of millions of illegals merely by being born on our soil, to thereby be deemed citizens by virtue of that one fact.
____________________________