Quote of the Day
I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.
…
I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain “a second-class right.”
Clarence Thomas
US Supreme Court Justice
June 2, 2025
Order List (06/02/2025)
See also:
- ‘The most popular civilian rifle’: Thomas says SCOTUS ‘depriving Americans’ of AR-15 is destroying ‘historical tradition’ of gun ownership
- CCRKBA DISAPPOINTED AS SCOTUS DECLINES TO HEAR MD. GUN BAN CASE | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
- NSSF Statement on the Denials of Cert by the U.S. Supreme Court • NSSF
- Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban | PBS News
- SCOTUS Declines to Hear Challenge to Maryland’s AR-15 Ban | AllSides
OTOH, I’d rather them not decide than have the current obviously compromised court be told by their handlers that gun and mag (etc.) bans are totally legit and in line with the 2A because mumble-reasons-word-salad.
It would be preferable to remove the compromised ones by exposure, or take out those holding the compromising material over them, leaving them freer to decide on the merits of the case.
Conservatives should introduce court expansion. Call the leftist bluff. Just reintroduce the bill from the Biden administration.
I wonder where in the entire American judiciary might be found a national treasure such as Clarence Thomas. Someone who is historically literate, who can comprehend what he reads, and articulate a conclusion based on that alone, regardless of his personal opinion. To wit: the founders were perfectly clear about this matter, “the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” It does not get more clear than that. Surely any arm that can be born by an American soldier is prima facie legal for an American citizen to keep and bear. Case closed. These matters should not take more than one hour of deliberation and half a paragraph in the decision.
I’ve said that before. It’s only a bad idea when Republicans want to do it.
Trump himself should talk about expanding the courts. He doesn’t have to be serious about it, just mention it. The TDS crowd on BOTH sides will melt down, come out and say — publicly and loudly — that court expansion is a terrible idea, “extremely dangerous to Our Democracy”, and should never be done.
Record ALL of those sound-bytes, and play them back the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office and talks about court expansion. Hold their noses in it.
OTOH, the Ninth Circuit needs to be broken up. There’s no reason for it to be as large as it is — both in terms of population and geography. Why does the Third Circuit have 14 judges and cover three States, while the Ninth has 29 judges and cover nine States and two territories? Why does one Circuit Court — out of 13, 12 of which cover specific geographical areas — cover over 1/5 of the population?
“We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.”
Try almost 90 years. This crap started in 1934.
“Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear
arms will remain “a second-class right.”
Hard copy that.
But something tells me it’s somewhat insane to think government tyrants are going to protect our rights?
Maybe it’s just me.
I certainly ain’t holding my breath waiting for the “broad squad” communists at SCOTUS to tell us what class it should be held at.
And the Miller decision should never have been handed down. Mr. Miller died and his attorney (whom Miller hadn’t paid) didn’t show up for oral arguments. SCOTUS decided it based entirely on government-provided evidence and testimony in favor of the NFA.
When Mr. Miller didn’t show — being dead — the case should have been declared moot — with no decision entered — and not affirming the government’s “right” to ban NFA items deemed “not particularly suitable for use in the militia” under false pretenses.
@ Archer 6.3.25 1723hours
Exactly! Miller is so misunderstood and misread.
Primary Holding:
“Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.”
Which, logically, would include any item that might used as a weapon. Especially Ar-15s and knives and swords.
“The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.”
That is the common understanding, because that is what we are told it is. But look at how narrowly the Court wrote its decision.
“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”
That sounds like a lot of weaseling. If only someone had introduced evidence “tending to show” the extensive use of short-barreled shotguns in the trench warfare of WWI, maybe the rarest of judicial blindfolds would have been lifted….
But as Archer stated, the original defendants beat feet as soon as the Appellate Court had quashed their indictments on proper Second Amendment grounds. The fedgov immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, who only heard one side, oddly enough.
In the end, the decision of the Court: “The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.”
Where, if the further proceedings had properly occurred, the voluminous evidence that had mysteriously escaped the Supremes myopic notice might have been presented. But, alas, there were no defense attorneys to appear and fedgov rested in their shallowest of victories, so that is how the case actually died – not with the roar that anti-gun propaganda would lead us to believe, but with a relieved whimper uttered by an otherwise defeated force when it realized that its mightier foe had forfeited the battlefield.
And let that be a lesson to us in fortitude.
Miller aside.
The amendment states that bearable arms are the issue. Forks are not a weapon of war either. Even though I’ve wanted to, and could have stabbed several different people to death with them in my life.
Should the court be able to ban them because there not a commonly used weapon of war?
Should congress be able to?
I trow not.
Regardless that sawed off shotguns are a weapon of war or not, it’s what I chose to bear. Or all I have available to bear.
Miller was crap. But it shows plainly how long this communist attitude has been running unchecked in our government.
It’s the way of all tyrants.
From Gilgamesh to Trump. It proves their fear and distain of us.
But shows us our power over them. Their frightened of us for good reason.
Well, your start was a tad pedantic. I agree with most of everything else you wrote, for whatever that might be worth.
Extra credit for bringing Gilgamesh into the arena.
Extra, extra credit for introducing the word “trow.”
I plan to use it elsewhere immediately.
Thanks. It’s from one of my favorite sayings of Jesus in the bible.
Showing that he speaks with authority.
“Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him?
I trow not.
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
I’m wondering at what point does the entire federal court system become sufficiently out-of-step and irrelevant that disregarding it becomes the default. Constitutionally, Congress possesses the correct answer, but both houses are well down their own paths to irrelevance, at least judging by the so-called budget wrangling.
Federal court irrelevancy, theoretically, leaves the citizenry at the mercy of state courts, but in the end state courts, and state legislatures, are both at the mercy of the citizenry. Would that the citizenry become aware of such.