Second Amendment Case Impacting Federalism at the United States Supreme Court

The Situation: Chaplain and constitutional expert Nicholas Purpura has dedicated many months to bringing forward a lawsuit which now is waiting on the SCOTUS to decide whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari. This case, Purpura v. Christie, et. al., docket number 17-280, has potential to restore much more than just the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. 

Call to Action: What stands in our way presently is lack of publicity to encourage the Court to take up this case. Should the Court receive public pressure to hear the case, they may be more likely to do so. Anyone can write to the Court to let them know that this case is important. I urge you to do so today, since the Court will decide by Oct. 27 whether or not to hear the case. After reading this information, please print the letter at this link, date and sign it, and mail it to the Supreme Court at the address shown on the letter. 

Background. The news blog The Post and E-Mail has written a detailed three-part series about this lawsuit, to which the reader may wish to refer for a full background and detailed analysis.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

The nut of the case is:

"...whether it is permissible for any branch of government deviate from, alter, or exceed the powers granted under the ARTICLES AND AMENDMENTS of the U. S. CONSTITUTION.

The State of New Jersey assumes and incorporates a restricted unconstitutional position concerning the right to bear arms. One which imposes the illegal requirement of ‘justifiable need’. Within this system there exists no constitutional right as defined in the Second Amendment. 

This confers the issuance of a carry permit on the whim of Police Chiefs and/or Superior Court judges who determine individual rights based upon their own personal ideological dictates. The threshold question is whether or not “Federalism” is being violated?..."  (emphasis mine) 

The suit is capable of restoring every citizen's gun rights in all 50 states.

In the petition, Purpura writes:

"The threshold matter before this court represents more than a single individual’s right to bear arms. It goes straight to the heart and viability of federalism."

"The ability to self-protect is not a privilege which can be offhandedly granted or denied by any state. It is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Second Amendment...This Petition draws into question the constitutionality of the state of New Jersey’s statutory scheme of arbitrarily & capriciously converting a civil right into a privilege...The conversion of an inalienable right into a privilege by the state of New Jersey must not be permitted to prevail." 

With this, Purpura proves that all administrative laws and restrictions must be ruled “null and void” if not instituted by Congress, because they are in violation of the 9th Amendment which protects “federalism”. The case further cites two recent Supreme Court cases: 2008, Bond v. United States, 09-1127; and 2015, Department of Transportation et al, v. Assoc. of American RR. No. 13-1080, which unanimously stated that unconstitutional administrative law “is no law at all”.

Second, Purpura makes a civil RICO case on the basis of "...a pattern of activity that demonstrated ongoing violations of civil liberties and numerous incidents of injury-in-fact..." and "...documents were submitted as evidence to demonstrate multiple ongoing violations by the enterprise [defendants] in their scheme to further deny citizens their rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."

Third, the case states that the issue is stare decisis; in other words it has already been adjudicated, and Purpura cites copious precedents and references.

This is an unprecedented opportunity to strike not only unconstitutional limitations to the Second Amendment, but also to provide a decision reinstating federalism and the rule of constitutional law over administrative law. Please print this letter and send it to the Supreme Court at the address given in the letter today so the Court receives your letter before their decision October 27.