In an article earlier this summer Dan Zimmerman, editor of The Truth About Guns (TTAG), opined that the Supreme Court had been neither denying nor granting certiorari in Second Amendment cases. He wrote:
“Ten gun rights-related cases are still awaiting a determination by the Supreme Court. The cases involve everything from ‘may issue’ carry permits to banning ‘assault weapons’ to the interstate sales of handguns. After the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case was declared moot by the Court, gun rights supporters have had high hopes that the Justices would grant cert to one or more of these for consideration next term. But that hasn’t happened.”
Many of us agreed at the time with the four conservative justices judgment of holding off on the SCOTUS making any Second Amendment rulings — very likely because of the unreliability and unpredictability of Chief Justice John Roberts, who has transformed himself into a flip-flopping liberal in an attempt to keep the Supreme Court “apolitical.”
But this may change sooner than we expect with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Trump has vowed to proceed with the nomination of a new justice, a woman; and Senator Mitch McConnell has likewise vowed to proceed with a vote on the Senate floor as soon as possible. Two fantastic women with incredible legal credentials are said to be at the top of the list of nominees, Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.
I think conservatives and constitutionalists in general and Second Amendment proponents in particular would be happy to see either one of those women on the high court.
Trump and the GOP leadership want to move toward nominating and confirming the nominee without delay, before Election Day on November 3 or during the lame-duck session.
But as I write these words, a great brouhaha has ensued as the Democrats with their allies in the mainstream media want to hold off on filling the vacancy until after the election. Obviously, they have shown that is not what they would do if they themselves held the Presidency and the Senate. It was Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid who changed the rules to allow for speedy confirmation of judges by allowing simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees. Of course, at that time the rule favored the Democrats. Justice Ginsburg herself was nominated and confirmed within 42 days. So there is no reason why this process should not proceed without delay.
Democrats and their minions have responded with their usual tactics, intimidation and even the threat of violence. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to recommence impeachment proceedings against Trump, if he moves forward with the nomination. Radicals have threatened to shut down the country and presumably recommence rioting, looting, and burning.
But I think radicals have worn out the patience of the American people, who have had enough of “mostly peaceful” protests that by in-large have turned out to be not so peaceful, but rather violent and destructive.
More than 5 million guns have been purchased since the inception of the George Floyd riots, mostly by new gun owners who want to protect their homes and their families — since the Democrats, who run most of the major cities where a lot of the crimes have been committed, have failed to protect local citizens and their businesses.
With either Barrett or Lagoa, SCOTUS should be able to deal with the outstanding Second Amendment issues that have been disturbingly ignored. It is time SCOTUS rules that the right to keep and bear arm is valid outside the home — in the streets, whether concealed or open carry — as well as the constitutionality of so-called “assault weapons,” which are semiautomatic firearms that only look paramilitary. These firearms are used for sport shooting, hunting, as well as self-defense, not to mention the primary reason the founders inserted the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights — namely, to provide a most important obstacle to tyrannical government. I say, let’s move full steam ahead with the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process!
Written by Dr. Miguel Faria
Miguel A. Faria, M.D., is Associate Editor in Chief in socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He was appointed and served at the behest of President George W. Bush as member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2002-2005. His recently released book is America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019).
This article appeared on GOPUSA.com on September 22, 2020 and an edited version was posted on The Truth About Guns (TTAG) on September 22, 2020 under the title “The Supreme Court Needs to Re-Open for Second Amendment Business.”
This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Let’s Open SCOTUS For Second Amendment Business! HaciendaPublishing.com, September 22, 2020. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/lets-open-scotus-for-second-amendment-business-by-miguel-a-faria-md/.
Copyright ©2020 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
1 thought on “Let’s Open SCOTUS For Second Amendment Business! by Miguel A. Faria, MD”
I should know this & believe it’s been challenged but how do the states get to decide gun rights? Is that in the constitution specifically stating states can make their own gun laws? I’ve recently looked & only found runaround articles. — Frank williams, FB
Frank Williams: The 14th Amendment covers the situation, I think: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”—Joe Mariani
Since 2A is an individual right, even the states may not usurp/infringe it…—Paul Rusin
Frank the states are bound to follow the Constitution, not only the Bill of Rights (particularly the Second Amendment) that states that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed and but also that the people and the militia are one. The 14th Amendment incorporates that right into the states. Any infringement by the states is a violation of the law of the land. What I wrote in America, Guns, and Freedom (2019) on pages 191-193 & 319-330 had been affirmed by the SCOTUS in two major decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). 😎— Dr. Miguel Faria
Yes…I believe it was intended to deny the “general government” any authority to infringe on our right to bear arms. I do not think it was meant to bind the States. The Bill of Rights was written to more specifically than the constitution limit the general government. States were not inclined to sign a document giving up their sovereignty. That’s why they have their own constitutions. The general government is how the framers in the constitution described what we now call the federal government. The Bill of Rights was meant to assure the States that the general government would stay in it’s very limited lane and not infringe on the States.— Mark Rogers
Mark, we can argue this forever, but Paul Rusin’s opinion is supported by the ruling of incorporation, which utilized the 14th Amendment in the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decision. In other words, the Bill of Rights pertains and includes the states, with the exclusion of the provision of the IX Amendment. 😎— Dr. Miguel Faria