Second Amendment/Federalism Case at the U.S. Supreme Court, Part 3

“WHERE LAW ENDS, TYRANNY BEGINS”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 14, 2017) — New Jersey pro se plaintiff Nicholas E. Purpura believes that the U.S. Supreme Court has a “fiduciary duty” to not only hear, but also rule favorably in his case, Purpura v. Christie, et al, to which the court clerk assigned a docket number in late August.

From that point, the high court could distribute the case for conference and/or decide to grant or refuse it oral argument.

As The Post & Email reported in Part 1 and Part 2 of our extensive interview with Purpura last month, Purpura is challenging gun laws passed in 1966 by the New Jersey legislature and upheld by state officials in an action which he said is more about “federalism” than the Second Amendment.

All documents filed in the case with the U.S. District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court can be found here.  Purpura said he is fighting for the right of every American to bear arms in keeping with the Second Amendment, without the restrictions of state legislative mandates.

In New Jersey, even if a carry permit is approved by local law enforcement, it must also receive an approval from the State Superior Court.

In 2013, New Jersey citizen John Drake and several co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the “justifiable need” requirement for carrying a handgun outside the home in that state.  The plaintiffs were joined by 19 states and a number of well-recognized Second Amendment organizations.

Drake was actually not the original plaintiff; a business owner who was kidnapped and assaulted had filed the suit after having been denied a carry permit, then removed himself after a permit was granted following his ordeal.

The Drake case argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, in contrast with the Third Circuit, had “struck down handgun carry prohibitions. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012).

However, the Second and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal ruled similarly to the Third Circuit’s Drake ruling in cases arising respectively in those jurisdictions. In an undated post following the Drake decision, The Firearms Coalition wrote, “Splits like this put pressure on the Supreme Court to clarify the issue and bring all of the circuit courts into alignment under one standard, but there is no legal requirement that they do so.”

Drake made its way to the Supreme Court in April 2014, but after distributing it for conference, the court declined to grant Drake’s petition for certiorari.

Purpura contends that the issues he raised when filing his case more than two years ago at the District Court in Trenton beg the questions, “Do we want our rights back?  Are we a free state?  Do we have a Constitution?  Will you do your duty?”

He maintains that the Second Amendment-related question as to whether or not New Jersey residents should have to meet the standard of “justifiable need” to carry a firearm outside the home “has already been adjudicated” in the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Heller, originating in Washington, DC; McDonald, originating in Chicago; and Caetano v. Massachusetts.

“Those decisions are useless in light of prior decisions; they have no bearing on the Second Amendment,” Purpura told us.  “It’s such a disgrace that this case must be heard; there really should be an investigation,” he said, referring to the lower courts’ rulings and lack of responses at various stages of his lawsuit.  “I can win the case on three different irrefutable arguments, and the defendants’ lawyers did not bring up even one.”

Of the Supreme Court’s eventual decision to grant or decline a hearing, Purpura said, “The only thing they can do is refuse to hear it.  They could say, ‘Well, you didn’t lose; we just don’t want to hear it.’  That is a disgusting game being played by our court system today.

“This issue is stare decisis, and I have yet to see anybody bring that up to the Supreme Court,” he continued.  “The court has one job and one job only:  to say what is constitutional and what is not, and the laws here are not constitutional by their own prior rulings.”

As for his reasons for spending virtually all of his time researching and writing in his golden years, Purpura told us:

I’m going to be 75 in December.  When I look out the window and see my grandchildren and other children playing in the cul-de-sac, I say, “They have to have the same rights I did.  The Supreme Court has said, “Once you take one right away, you can take the rest.”

I don’t care a hoot what they believe ideologically.  I care about my oath to the U.S. Constitution. I care about everyone.  It has to stop.  The courts have become a disgrace by political hacks put into office to restrict and rule over us.  England tried that, and there was a revolution.

What we have here is a peaceful resolution:  Follow the law, or you should be removed from office for one reason only. This is more than a high crime and a misdemeanor:  this is treason.  It also proves it because they took the oath.  I think Justice Alito made that clear.  And not only him:  it was made clear throughout our laws.  They are not king and what they say goes.

When I was in grammar school, on the side-door entrance, there was a word etched in concrete over the door:  “Where law ends, tyranny begins.”  And guess what?  What’s going on New Jersey is tyrannical.  Everybody’s making money here. They’re the ones who are stealing our legacy, our posterity.  They’re stealing the American dream.

The communist goals are very clear:  take over the courts; use the courts against the people. We have the law on our side in numerous areas, and guess what?  They use the law against us, without even answering the proper way.

Everything that has taken place in this case has been capricious because they are guilty.  That’s why we need judicial reform.  It’s time we have constitutionalists, regardless of party, in the courts.  We need to bring back our country to its former greatness.

Trump keeps saying that he’s in favor of the people’s rights under the Second Amendment.  Well, good.  Talking to the NRA and these so-called Second Amendment foundations, they do not want to protect it. They don’t want to win it.  All they do is give you stories every day and say, “Help us, help us!”

Those groups joined the Drake case.  They always file their briefs when the Supreme Court takes a case because they want to be on the winning side.  But are they truly fighting in their briefs?  No, but if the plaintiff wins, they will say, “Look what we did.”

“How is your case different from Drake?” The Post & Email asked.

Drake had a very valid argument, but what the Circuit Court did was absolutely criminal.  They took the argument that New Jersey had a longstanding restriction on the right to carry. The Supreme Court originally said that someone with a criminal felony or someone mentally incapacitated would not be allowed to own a firearm. So what the Third Circuit did in a very slimy manner was to say, “We in New Jersey have had a very longstanding rule…”, but it wasn’t longstanding.  Up until 1966, citizens of New Jersey had the right to carry a firearm.  There was another argument they made.  They took words out of context of the Heller case and they mixed them up.

Heller had two controlling bodies of law, and they admitted in the Drake case that the legislature couldn’t have known that they were violating the Second Amendment.  But wait a minute…on the one hand, how could you say we’re going to agree with the District Court and then say the legislature of New Jersey couldn’t have known they were violating the Second Amendment?

You can’t say from one side of your mouth that it’s been longstanding and then out of the other side of your mouth that they didn’t know.  Everything is based upon a lie.

The Second Amendment leads right to the First Amendment, and these groups could fight to protect it, but they don’t want to. There’s too much money in it.

Let’s restore America to what it was.  This is about your rights.  There is one man fighting, but he needs you!  He’s not fighting for financial gain; he’s fighting for restoration of all our rights and our Constitution as a whole.  That affects every one of us.  No one has the right to reinterpret the Constitution.

My wish is for “Miracle on 34th Street” to happen in this case.  Let this be our Miracle on 34th Street that we get the publicity for the case to be heard.  People can write to the Supreme Court to ask them to hear this case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Response to "Second Amendment/Federalism Case at the U.S. Supreme Court, Part 3"

  1. Three-Pound Sledge   Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 5:13 PM

    Based on how documents and laws are worded, people everywhere just cannot get it through their noggin that the Second Amendment does not grant U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear ‘arms’.

    When the Department of Justice starts prosecuting lawmaking politicians at all levels of government that make ANY laws that ‘infringe’ on our God-given right to keep and bear arms of any type, that’s the day that the Second Amendment will be understood. God-given rights is a synonymous phrase for Natural Law. Excellent read from the following weblink on Natural Law, but I cannot attest to their knowledge of natural born citizen:

    http://www.visionandvalues.org/barker/

    The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” One sentence formed by the Founding Fathers that is plain and simple to understand, except for Liberal Loons and RINOs.

    The Second Amendment does not GRANT the citizens of the U.S. the right to keep and bear ‘arms’. The Second Amendment commands lawmakers not to make ANY laws banning or restricting our God-given right to keep and bear ‘arms’.

    All ‘arms’ laws directed at non-incarcerated U.S. citizens, including the laws requiring the need to be licensed to ‘carry’, are unConstitutional.

    Focus on prosecuting lawmakers (aka politicians), not the U.S. citizens, when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.