{"id":114451,"date":"2026-01-06T22:07:30","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T04:07:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=114451"},"modified":"2026-01-06T22:07:30","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T04:07:30","slug":"114451","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=114451","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Chief Justice Roberts Is Not Defending The Second Amendment\u2014He Is Containing It<\/a><\/p>\n

New York \u2013\u00a0<\/strong>Let us dispense with the pleasantries.<\/p>\n

The United States Supreme Court\u2019s handling of Second Amendment cases is not \u201cconfusing<\/em>,\u201d not \u201ccomplicated<\/em>,\u201d and not the product of innocent happenstance. It is, rather, the predictable output of discretionary power being used\u00a0to\u00a0avoid<\/em>\u00a0decisive confrontation with state defiance<\/strong>\u00a0of the Court\u2019s own landmark rulings.<\/p>\n

And in that avoidance, the Second Amendment is being bled\u2014slowly, methodically, and with a degree of institutional self-protection that should alarm every citizen who understands what the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms\u00a0is<\/em>, and what it is\u00a0for<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

This companion article is necessarily short. The full argument is set forth in our original Arbalest Quarrel article, (Chief Justice Roberts Is Strangling The Life Out Of The Second Amendment<\/strong><\/em>) which we urge\u00a0you to read in full<\/a>. But the essentials are plain enough, and they must be stated plainly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Battle Is Not Only In The Merits\u2014It Is In The Docket<\/h3>\n

Most Americans do not understand that the Supreme Court is not a forum of automatic justice.<\/p>\n

The Court selects what it will hear. It grants or denies petitions for writs of certiorari at its discretion. And although Supreme Court Rule 10 pretends to supply a neutral architecture for that discretion, the reality is that Rule 10\u00a0functions as a\u00a0judicial escape hatch<\/em><\/strong>\u2014a convenient justification for declining the very cases that demand intervention.<\/p>\n

In no domain is this more destructive than in Second Amendment litigation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If the Court refuses to take the cases that matter, then\u00a0Heller<\/em>,\u00a0McDonald<\/em>, and\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0become museum pieces\u2014praised as \u201chistoric\u201d while states openly devise end-runs around them in real time.<\/p>\n

A Right that cannot be enforced is not a Right in any serious sense. It is a slogan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The \u201cRule Of Four\u201d Is Real\u2014But The Strategy Is Realer<\/h3>\n

We discuss at length in the original article the Supreme Court\u2019s so-called \u201cRule of Four\u201d\u2014the traditional practice that four Justices may grant certiorari.<\/p>\n

This is not a trivial procedural detail. It is supposed to preserve the integrity of the Court\u2019s appellate function by ensuring that a substantial minority may bring a matter before the Court for decision on the merits.<\/p>\n

But in Second Amendment cases, the deeper reality is this:<\/p>\n

Those Justices who cherish the Natural Law Right codified in the Second Amendment do not, as a general matter, vote to grant review\u00a0unless they believe they have the votes to win.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

And those who detest the Right will happily grant review when they\u00a0believe they have five votes to shred it.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

This is why docket selection is not \u201cadministration.\u201d It is warfare by another name.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wolford<\/em>\u00a0Was Granted\u2014Antonyuk<\/em>\u00a0 &\u00a0Snope<\/em>\u00a0Were Denied\u2014And That Is The Story<\/h3>\n

Many in the pro-Second Amendment community have greeted the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to\u00a0grant review in\u00a0Wolford v. Lopez<\/em><\/a>\u00a0with optimism.<\/p>\n

That optimism is misplaced.<\/p>\n

Wolford<\/em>, while not insignificant, is not the decisive confrontation the moment requires. It involves a narrow question within the larger \u201csensitive places\u201d framework\u2014yet the framework itself is the threat.<\/p>\n

The fundamental question is whether the states may \u201capprove\u201d public carry in theory while rendering it impossible in practice by declaring ordinary life a latticework of forbidden zones.<\/p>\n

That is the post-Bruen<\/em>\u00a0strategy. And it is precisely why\u00a0Antonyuk v. James<\/em>\u00a0mattered.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Antonyuk<\/em>\u00a0Was The Direct Challenge To State Defiance Of\u00a0Bruen<\/em><\/h3>\n

New York lost\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0on \u201cproper cause.\u201d<\/p>\n

And then New York,\u00a0enraged and defiant<\/em>, acted exactly as a hostile government acts when it is told \u201cNo\u201d by the Constitution: it searched for a loophole\u2014then built an entire statutory architecture to exploit it.<\/p>\n

The \u201csensitive places\u201d scheme was not incidental. It was deliberate. It was crafted to erase\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0without admitting it was erasing\u00a0Bruen<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If the Supreme Court were serious about being the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution,\u00a0Antonyuk<\/em>\u00a0should have been granted review.<\/p>\n

The Court denied review.<\/p>\n

That denial was not meaningless. It was a signal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Snope<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Was A Vehicle For The\u00a0\u201cCommon Use\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Question The Court Keeps Dodging<\/h3>\n

Maryland\u2019s\u00a0Snope<\/em>\u00a0case sits in the same universe as the recurring semiautomatic ban cases\u2014the question of whether arms in common use may be forbidden because the political class has adopted the dishonest phrase \u201cassault weapon.\u201d<\/p>\n

We have seen this pattern before.<\/p>\n

Friedman v. Highland Park<\/em>\u00a0should have been granted. It was denied. And ever since, the states have interpreted silence as permission to continue probing and pushing.<\/p>\n

If the Court refuses to settle the \u201ccommon use\u201d question with clarity and force, then the states will continue filing into the void.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Roberts Is Not \u201cOne Of Nine\u201d In Practice<\/h3>\n

Many people speak as if the Chief Justice is merely a vote.<\/p>\n

That is na\u00efve.<\/p>\n

The Chief Justice sets tone. The Chief Justice influences what is encouraged, what is discouraged, what is slowed, what is contained, and what is treated as \u201ctoo hot\u201d for the Court to touch.<\/p>\n