SCOTUS Betrays Again - This Time Sides with California Against Gun Owners
The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term have brought one undeniable reality into focus.
Put simply, the federal judiciary has become a significant threat to the liberty of the American people.
As reported by The Washington Times, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that challenged a sweeping California gun-control measure many view as blatantly unconstitutional.
Astonishingly, California’s law prohibits gun shows from being held on state-owned land, including fairgrounds.
The plaintiffs in B&L Productions v. Gavin Newsom sought an emergency injunction from SCOTUS to stop the enforcement of the law — which had already been upheld by the liberal-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — and requested that the Court hear full arguments. Yet, they failed to secure agreement from at least four justices to take up the case.
On its face, this development may appear surprising. After all, Justice Clarence Thomas’ landmark majority opinion in the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision made it abundantly clear that Americans are not required to obtain government permission to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Sadly, Monday’s decision marks yet another example of how the federal judiciary is increasingly aligned against Americans’ freedom.
Back in June, for example, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a coalition of Republican attorneys general and private individuals had no legal standing to sue the Biden administration over its coercive online censorship campaigns during the 2020-21 COVID period.
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in his powerful minority opinion.
Now, the Court has once more refused to weigh in on a serious constitutional issue — this time, involving the Second Amendment.
In some respects, we shouldn’t be shocked. Chief Justice John Roberts, though nominally conservative, often votes against liberty. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, despite her reputation, frequently aligns with progressive positions outside of abortion. The establishment can typically count on their votes.
This broader trend — a judiciary indifferent or even hostile to freedom and the Constitution — is deeply troubling, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment’s explicit text.
The phrase “shall not be infringed” doesn’t leave much wiggle room. If “infringe” merely meant to “destroy,” there might be legal justification for non-confiscatory restrictions. But because “infringe” clearly means to “limit,” the government is prohibited from placing any restrictions on a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms.
Compounding the issue is a widespread misunderstanding: many Americans wrongly believe the Bill of Rights grants freedoms, when in truth, it exists as a strict limitation on government authority.
Naturally, reasonable people can agree that firearms don’t belong in every setting — kindergarten classrooms being a prime example. But those with criminal intent are not deterred by laws. Therefore, the answer isn’t more legislation. Rather than violating constitutional rights, we ought to consider securing our children as seriously as we secure our financial institutions.
Simply put, if the government lacks the power to restrict our fundamental rights, then it certainly has no authority to do so on state-owned property. Considering the Constitution’s core purpose, the bar for any government action that impinges on liberty must be set sky-high.
Shame on SCOTUS for allowing California to bypass that constitutional threshold.