Update On Supreme Court Case

Just a quick update to let our members know what’s happening with Shew v Malloy. As most know, we petitioned the Supreme Court to hear our appeal. The State of Connecticut has asked the court not to hear our case. You can read their argument why here:
Shew-v-Malloy 15-1030 – Respondents’ Opposition to Cert Petition (pdf)

Out legal team has fired back; pointing out how and why the State is incorrect. You can read our response here:
Shew-v-Malloy 15-1030 rb (pdf)

5 thoughts on “Update On Supreme Court Case

  1. Maybe the legal team should have added how Connecticut still “allows” the manufacture of so called “assault weapons” within its own borders – FOR SALE IN OTHER STATES WHERE IT IS STILL LEGAL TO PURCHASE AND OWN THEM.

    Or how about, that Democrats are the most anti-gun scum on the face of this nation? They should all be fired for breaking their Constitutional oaths of office. Libtards !!

  2. I thought the courts could not be influence by the states or governors , I guess we all know they role together and are all in it for them selfs and the power, oh my all the power they have , I wonder how they came up with the position supreme justice for life hmmm.

  3. The traitor’s unconstitutional and intolerable acts have already been rendered NULL & VOID by the 85% non-compliance of Patriots in The Armed Civil Disobedience. Rogue court rulings past, present, or future will only have meaning when all the traitors are standing before us Patriots as their death sentence is carried out, and how much extra pain & suffering we will inflict. Waiting and hoping for constitutionally correct or friendly rulings is useless. We need to be people of ACTION!

    I have personally been non-compliant since their first infringements in 1994, and encourage everyone to join me in doing the following:


    If the tyrants ever feel froggy enough to try and take our arms by force (the only way they really can)….WE WILL KILL THEM!

    Thoughts From Behind Enemy Lines: http://tfbel.blogspot.com

  4. With the ACA the Supreme Court seemed to bend over backwards to keep it alive. Switching from it mandatory fines to taxing fines. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t follow the same line of thinking to keep a constitutional amendment alive. After all, not only did Congress ok it, it was also ratified by the state legislatures. The primary and only purpose of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was to apply the federal Bill of Rights to the states. It started with joint resolution HR 63 on February 26, 1866 (Congressional Globe, page 1033) with an amendment proposal to give the federal government power to make the states respect these rights. During the argument side of this proposal the amendment was changed to what today is Section 1 of the 14th. Senator Jacob Howard specifically covered the definitions of ‘privileges and immunities’ on May 23, 1866 (Congressional Globe, page 2765) and clearly stated the right to keep and bear arms. This was also clearly stated on the front page of the New York Times on May 24, 1866. Senator Howard, May 26, 1866, Congressional Globe, page 2766,”The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.” The author of Section 1, Congressman John Bingham stated why the proposal was changed. Appendix to the Congressional Globe, March 31, 1871, page 84, Bingham stated,”In reexamining that case of Barron, Mr. Speaker, after my struggle in the House in February, 1866, to which the gentlemen has alluded, I noted and apprehended as I never did before, certain words in that opinion of Marshall. Referring to the first eight articles of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Chief Justice said,”Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.” Barron vs. The Mayor, &c, 7 Peters, 250. Acting upon that suggestion I did imitate the framers of the original Constitution.” A few paragraphs later Bingham continued with, “Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows: [the first eight are quoted] These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make [Section 5].” It seem your lawsuit does not have much to do with the 14th Amendment. But it seems to me that ‘strict scrutiny’ should start with whether Connecticut has the power in the first place to deny these firearms, not so much whether the firearm is popular in other states. It also seems that the Supreme Court would bend over backwards to apply a law that is the supreme law of the land. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW.

Comments are closed.