Justice Gorsuch may find things a bit busy....

To reiterate once again: It was the Supreme Court that gave us the problems with the 2nd Amendment. Without evidence and with great lies, Marshall gave us Barron v Baltimore (1833) and claimed the Bill of Rights had no binding power on the States. This decision flies in the face of the plain and simple text of the 2nd AND the supremacy and republican govenrment clauses of the original Constitution. The 2nd itself makes absolutely no reference to the federal government which the 1st does. The 2nd SPECIFICALLY uses the term State, which is NOT the United States, and can be understood to mean a "free State" of being, i.e. FREEDOM of the People is directly dependent upon their ability to fight back against corruption and tyranny.

The Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government to each State and what better way than to put the overriding Rights of individuals in the supreme law of the land to bind all governments. Rawle in his 1825 and 1829 works stated directly that the Bill of Rights bound the States.

Finally the supremacy clause states that the Constitution, and laws, and treaties made under the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. The 2nd falls into this category and IS the supreme law of the land binding all governments from the simple local commission to the federal government AND the supreme court.

And 5 Justices for expedited Certiorari

Folks need to realize that the judges are not on the side of the people because the judges are selected and paid and under the control of the feds, esp the Congress. Since the judges think they can define constitutional clauses, the Congress can decide to claim the same authority and the Congress can remove judges through impeachment. What is good behavior? It is what we say it is. So the judiciary will never truly support the real 2nd which states that no government has any authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms. Deciding how and if one may keep arms or how and if one may bear arms infringes except in the minds of those who fear the people keeping and bearing arms. There is but one thing government does well and that is to enslave its citizens.

FWB: "So the judiciary will never truly support the real 2nd which states that no government has any authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms."

For the ordinary black-robed tyrant, I'd agree.

I think Gorsuch will be different, not at all ordinary. He's the kind of judge who recognizes and respect limits on a judge's power.

I think Kozinski from the 9th Circuit would be too. Hard choice: if Notorius RBG blows a circuit breaker, should we leave him at the 9th where he offsets the rest of the Circus's lunatics, or promote him to the SupCt where he could overrule them?

Fyooz:

It correct choice is get him on the SC as he is then 1 of 9 rather than 1 of "97 million" on the 9th