Thursday, December 10, 2015

More on Supreme Court Silence on Second Amendment.

According to the Atlantic:

"Monday’s refusal to hear Friedman is the latest episode in the Supreme Court’s strange silence on the Second Amendment since handing down two landmark rulings, D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, in 2008 and 2010. As the national debate over the role of firearms in American society intensifies with each mass shooting or proposed gun-control measure, the justices have refused to hear a single major gun-rights case since they applied the Second Amendment to the states five years ago.
The Court’s silence hasn’t been for want of a significant case. In June, the justices declined to hear a challenge to San Francisco’s requirement that handguns must be either disabled with trigger locks or stored in locked containers when not in use. The city ordinance was similar, though not identical, to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. Last year, the justices ignored two NRA-led cases challenging federal and state age restrictions on firearm purchases. And in 2013, the Court refused a case that sought to overturn New York’s strict regulations on carrying handguns outside the home.
The cumulative effect of these denials (and many others) is a bizarre unwillingness to participate in a legal revolution that the Court itself ignited. First, some history." . . .
Five justices formed the majorities in Heller and McDonald: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John Roberts. All of them remain on the Court today. The Court does not identify how justices vote when granting or denying certiorari petitions, but four votes are required to grant a case. We can therefore logically conclude that at least two justices from the Heller/McDonald majority have refused to take a single Second Amendment case in the last five years."

The refusal to hear an appeal in the San Francisco case is especially  disturbing. With regard to this case, see this article.

The Court's refusal to hear appeals of decisions that, according to the article, "undercut" Heller-McDonald, suggests to this blogger that the Court, even the conservatives, have lost their enthusiasm for the Second Amendment.  This is a serious dereliction of the Court's duty to provide direction and guidance to governments and citizens.  Five years is an inexcusable period of silence.  It is also a serious blow to individual freedom and the rule of law.


  1. From what I've read, Chief Justice Roberts tends to avoid cases he views as settled law that should be addressed by the political entities like congress and the administration. Good luck on the latter. While I agree with his view about a limited judiciary, his earlier decision which saved "Obamacare" absolutely floored me. Kennedy may be the other hold out regarding anymore 2A concerns.

  2. My guess is that most of the certiorari deniers, for the lack of a better term, is hoping for a clear majority to vote their way. If Ginsberg were out and Cruz in, or Scalia out and a Kagen clone in then I think cert would be given. Having Cruz on the court would not be a bad thing.

  3. I very much agree having Cruz on the U.S. Supreme Court would be a big plus.