All I Want for Christmas is the Second Amendment

“My wife only has sex with me for a purpose. Last night it was to time an egg.”

— Rodney Dangerfield

Historically speaking, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down Second Amendment cases more often than Dangerfield’s wife turned him down for the horizontal bop.

To put this sad fact in perspective, it actually wasn’t until 2008 — more than two centuries after the Second Amendment’s formal ratification…

That the Supreme Court finally cemented an individual’s right to own a gun for home defense, in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

But with the exception of one 2010 case clarifying this right (McDonald v. City of Chicago), America’s high court hasn’t made a peep on guns ever since.

In fact, they’ve routinely found new and inventive ways NOT to rule on cases that would further buttress your right to firearms, despite having been petitioned to hear many of them over the decades.

This judicial dodge-ball act has become so pervasive that Justice Clarence Thomas called the Second Amendment a “disfavored right” and a “constitutional orphan” in 2018, after the court refused to hear yet another potentially defining gun rights case.

But there may yet be hope for the Second Amendment — the one that guarantees the liberty under which all the other amendments exist and thrive.

In a move that suggests the confirmation of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will end up paying big dividends to American shooters, the now majority conservative (at least on paper) Supreme Court once again heard arguments in a gun rights case, on Monday, December 2nd

And even though it seems unlikely that they’ll actually rule on this case (more on this later), they don’t really have to issue a ruling for gun owners to claim a win here.

Because just their hearing of the case has nakedly exposed a gun-rights suppression conspiracy that all who truly love America should know about.

State and local laws tyrannize in Constitutional void

The Supreme Court’s long history of spinelessness in upholding and strengthening the Second Amendment has granted state and local governments tacit license to abuse our gun rights (and they do).

In the worst of these places, the Second Amendment isn’t just an unloved orphan, like Justice Thomas said…

It’s a red-headed stepchild to be beaten* regularly.

No, check that — it’s a mangy, three-legged, one-eyed stray dog that the red-headed step-kid kicks around after getting beaten.

And say what you will about California, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, DC…

For my money, the epicenter of all gun hatred is New York (Jersey’s no picnic, either), specifically New York City.

NYC and other places like it use the Supreme Court’s reluctance to further define the Second Amendment as cover to persecute gun owners with impunity — liberty and the Constitution be damned. They make no bones about being proud of it, too.

But now we’ve got incontrovertible proof of this conspiracy to defy the Constitution, and a de facto legislative affirmation of some basic gun rights.

That’s because in January of 2019, the high court agreed to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association V. City of New York — the gun rights case that came before the bench last Monday.

In a nutshell, this case was brought by a New York shooting club against the Big Apple for its punitive laws regarding transportation of handguns in vehicles.

Under the challenged statute, legal and licensed NYC gun owners were prohibited from going anywhere with their handguns except to seven specific shooting ranges within city limits…

Not to other firing ranges out beyond the boroughs, not to upstate or out-of-state shooting matches, not even to their second homes up in the mountains.

But here’s the thing: After the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case back in January (something Big Apple lawmakers clearly thought would never happen)…

The city legislature quickly amended the law to remove the travel restrictions at the heart of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association lawsuit.

Obviously, their objective was to prevent this case from being heard by the high court — by rendering the lawsuit itself moot.

Why would the city roll over like that, instead of just going to trial, then changing the law if they were forced to by the high court?

Because they knew damn well their law was unconstitutional, and that they’d get the red-headed stepchild treatment themselves in a Supreme Court ruling.

They also knew that this judicial spanking would set a new precedent that could invalidate all sorts of other gun restrictions not just in New York — but in most other liberal gun-hating zones across the country.

That’s something the Democrats, neo-Socialists, and other left-wing Deep State operatives embedded in America’s political infrastructure just can’t abide.

Will NYC’s “lose the battle, win the war” tactic work?

The four liberal Justices (RBG, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor) all reportedly expressed sentiments that would tend to indicate they believed the case was, indeed, moot…

While Chief Justice Roberts also seemed to be inclined toward not ruling on the case.

Justices Gorsuch and Alito, however, showed interest in pursuing certain aspects of the complaint that remain unresolved…

Like the fact that NYC’s hastily-approved replacement statute still mandates that licensed gun owners may only transport their handguns in “continuous and uninterrupted” trips, according to the letter of the law.

That means no stops for gas, coffee, lunch, to buy ammo, to pick up a fellow shooter, or to use the restroom.

Technically, even stopping to change a flat tire or exchange information after a fender-bender would violate this part of the law. So would being pulled over for speeding or for a burnt-out turn signal bulb!

Yeah, that all seems totally fair and reasonable, doesn’t it?

No intention to terrorize or limit the freedom of gun owners there. Nah.

Bottom line: If the Supreme Court doesn’t reject the case for being moot — or for about a dozen other tried-and-true reasons they’ve used before to wimp out on their duty to uphold and strengthen the Second Amendment…

It’s possible that they could actually issue a ruling on what’s left of this lawsuit (or on other cans of worms the replacement law opened) by mid-summer.

But there’s more to the story of this potentially landmark case than just what I’ve revealed so far here…

And it shows a side of the gun-hating liberal Democrats you’ve always suspected exists, but may never have seen stark proof of before.

The sordid details are coming soon, in the second part of this series.

Straight-shootingly Yours,

Jim Amrhein

Jim Amrhein
Freedoms Editor, Whiskey & Gunpowder
WhiskeyAndGunpowderFeedback@StPaulResearch.com

*Neither myself, nor the staff of Whiskey & Gunpowder advocate discrimination against redheads, step-children — or the beating of anyone, for any reason. Though shamelessly un-PC, the “like a red-headed stepchild” simile is nevertheless a widely used and accepted expression for abuse or marginalization in the popular idiom. I’m sorry to use it here, but it was too damn apropos (and funny) not to bust out. So go ahead and shame me if you must, and signal your superior virtue to the world. — JA

You May Also Be Interested In:

Jim Amrhein

Just like he was 15 years ago, when first he sullied the pages of the original Whiskey & Gunpowder e-Letter and various other forums, Jim is still ornery, opinionated, politically incorrect, and shamelessly patriotic. He’s also more convinced than ever before that government can’t do much of anything right — except expand in scope and...

View More By Jim Amrhein