By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- The Supreme Court kept the Trump administration’s claim of authority to limit travel from six “Muslim majority countries” alive for the time being and dashed hope for gun owners seeking redress for their right to bear arms, SCOTUSBlog reported Monday.
“The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency,” the Associated Press confirms. “The court said Monday the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced as long as they lack a ‘credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.’ The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.”
Of significance, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the opinion that “allowed the government to reinstate the ban for all travelers from the six affected countries, regardless of any personal connection that those travelers might have with the United States. Thomas complained that today’s order could prove ‘unworkable,’ requiring government officials to try to figure out whether would-be travelers have enough of an connection to the United States to come here, and could ‘invite a flood of litigation.’”
High court action, or rather, inaction, closed off gun owners’ options for redress closed off, considering political realities. The court denied certiorari, meaning it will not hear the case of Peruta v. California.
Again significantly, Justice Gorsuch agreed with Justice Thomas that the case should have been heard. His actions in both cases alleviate some of the concerns expressed in this column questioning how gun owners could assume Gorsuch’s legal agreement until he clarified his thoughts on the Second Amendment.
“We are disappointed in the Court’s rejection of the appeal in Peruta v. California, which now leaves millions of law-abiding Californians with no ability to bear arms outside the home,” the National Rifle Association said in a statement following the court’s inexcusable abdication of duty. “We look forward to a future Court affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is as much a part of our Constitution as the other enumerated rights that it protects.”
And when will that be? In the mean time, those gun owners are left with two options no free citizens should be expected to choose between: Obey or refuse to comply, and decide which choice endangers life and liberty the least.
Meanwhile, they will continue to live under regimes that deny their right to keep and bear arms while simultaneously offering “sanctuary” to unvettable foreign nationals and illegal aliens.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
At 70 yr.`s young,I was brought up to respect our country,our Constitution,and our Government. Our Government which I believed had our countries and therefore our best interests in everything they did. I was taught to respect authority,the service taught me to do as I was told. How has it come to be that I no longer believe that Our Gov. has our best interest`s in mind? Who taught me not to respect our leaders?Who caused me to worry that my gun may be illegal tomorrow,or the next day?Who reminds me continually about the ‘rule of law’,while ignoring laws themselves?Who makes… Read more »
I fail to understand why the American people are always so surprised at judicial tyranny. Murray Rothbard explained the workings of SCOTUS back in 1973 in a very clear, succinct, and to the point manner as follows: “It is true that, in the United States, at least, we have a constitution that imposes strict limits on some powers of government. But, as we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government’s own Supreme Court, then… Read more »