Chief justice John Roberts has turned out to not be the ally American Patriots had hoped he would be. The Court’s decision to not hear numerous Second Amendment cases is a clear sign that the chief justice is not going to uphold the U.S. Constitution nor the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s quiet announcement that it would not hear any of the 10 Second Amendment cases they had been considering sent a clear message to America… “We are afraid to support the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment.”

In a prepared statement following the Supreme Court’s rejection of 10 pending gun rights cases, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb, said that responsibility for the Supreme Court song and dance “falls squarely at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts,” the question that requires an answer is “Is the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court afraid of restoring the Second Amendment to apply equally to all citizens?” It most certainly appears to be the case.

Gottlieb additionally stated “Given the fact that the Supreme Court had a cafeteria-style menu of cases from which to choose, there is no excuse why the court at this time chose to ignore the need to rule on any of these cases, and send a message to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Roberts’ appointment to the court made the 5-4 Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) Second Amendment opinions possible. His addition to the court enabled Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito to pen opinions simple enough for anyone to understand; the Second Amendment protects an individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms outside of any service in a militia.

However, in the years since Heller and McDonald, lower courts have mutilated the second amendment but pushing the question of whether this right is granted beyond the confines of a person’s home. It is a question that seems to have an obvious answer, but never the less, needs to be answered in a very clear manner by the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. This is exasperated even further when considering a passage in Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in the court’s rejection of Rogers v. Grewal, one of the ten cases. This was a challenge to the New Jersey “justifiable need” requirement to obtain a carry permit in the State.

“One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matter[s]’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in conflict.”…The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.”

According to several observers, including SAF’s Gottliebhe, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to even examine cases such as this that addresses the right “to bear arms” in a direct manner is 100% the responsibility of Chief Justice Roberts.

Perhaps Justice Roberts does not want to hear cases such as these because there is only one constitutionally legal and logical answer to the questions being raised; such laws as those that currently exist in New Jersey, New York, California and a number of other states, would be repealed and made null and void? It would begin to crumble such states’ overreach and regulatory schemes, which would give Patriots living in those states some of their freedoms back. This would be the fist drops of a downpour, since the exercise of a fundamental, individual right requires no explanation or justification. It would set precedence against any law that infringed upon a fundamental human right. A right is to be exercised fully yet responsibly, regardless of opinions and misguided moral compass of some bureaucrat or special interest group.

Alternatively, leaving unconstitutional laws and restrictions on an enumerated right intact, even for a time period, Roberts is diminishing that right to the rank of a regulated privilege.

Even if Justice Roberts is comfortable with the status quo, millions of law-abiding gun owners are not. Americans want and deserve to enjoy the same God given rights as other American citizens living in Tennessee or Texas, Arizona or Idaho, or any of the dozens of other states where one can exercise a constitutional right without the need to provide a reason to do so.

Americans can not ignore what is blatantly obvious, Chief Justice Roberts is afraid of advancing a basic human rights case to the point that a high court ruling will be issued with his name attached to it. With this being the case America’s 100 million plus gun owners have one question that must be answered… Why?