I copied this from Gun Tests and I think it is a good article to share here with gun owners.

I was hopeful that the Supreme Court would take up at least one gun-rights case that had seemingly ripened enough for the justices to consider in 2020. But in the middle of June, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decided not to clarify any Second Amendment litigation when it rejected nearly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases that it had been considering in conference. This follows on the heels of another disappointment when the court decided to moot a challenge to a New York City gun law that had the potential to take gun bans off the table entirely. Here’s what the court decided not to hear:


• Worman v. Healey challenged the state’s ban on “assault weapons.”
• Gould v. Lipson challenged Massachusetts’ carry laws.
• Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo, and Ciolek v. New Jersey dealt with challenges to New Jersey’s carry laws and “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit. Malpasso v. Pallozzi took on similar requirements in Maryland.
• Pena v. Horan: This challenge to California’s microstamping law took effect in 2012 and has reduced the availability of new models of handguns and caused existing models of handguns to be banned.
• Culp v. Raoul challenged an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license, while Wilson v. Cook County took on that Illinois county’s ban on modern sporting rifles.
• Mance v. Barr challenged the ban on interstate sales of handguns.

It’s hard to know which denials are the most repugnant. The NJ and Maryland laws prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The patronizing aspect of officials deciding which citizens deserve protection for their lives offends me. I’m most familiar with Mance, since it originated in Texas. It had the potential to completely overthrow the existing across-state-lines restrictions of handgun sales, and it had Alan Gura, the lawyer who won Heller, as counsel for Texas FFL Fredric Mance, the named litigant.

With so many choices, why did SCOTUS take a pass on everything? The likely answer is unsettling: Roberts. Chief Justice John Roberts has moved left, so he’s now the likely fifth vote against any pro-2nd Amendment ruling. If Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all want to review a 2A case, but Roberts can’t be counted on as the fifth vote in a 5-4 split, we are indeed better off waiting until a more dependable justice can replace RBG or Breyer. And that depends on what happens in November. - Todd Woodard

Thanks for sharing and making us aware.

Judge Ruth (RBG) has been fighting multiple cancers for years and has beaten the odds every time. Now she is recovering from liver cancer and doing well. I think the only way cancer will take her out is if it gets to her brain. She is old but works out daily and eats right to hold on to her life. She is a fighter and I respect her for that but I don't like how she treats the constitution. Roberts is a worm. He changes faster than a runway model. I don't think I would feel bad if he got run over by a garbage truck. Maybe someone could start a rumor that he had evidence against the Clintons... they would "suicide" him.

As an outside & less involved observer, it seems to me the USSC is refusing to consider cases where there is a clear breach of the US Constitution.
Taking into consideration the current 5:4 conservative majority, the ONLY reason for this is political coercion/collusion.

Consider this: The 2nd Amendment is clearly taken from the 1689 English Bill of Rights & yet look at where I am today, with the possession of firearms here described as a "privilege" by more than one senior (so-called)conservative politician.

That's where the US will be before the end of this century without a radical change in how those in power can influence those charged with curbing that power.

It'll be "messy", one way or another.

Well Roberts was supposed to be a conservative judge but he has failed a few times. What I suppose happened was the 4 justices who recognized the need to hear the cases couldn't convince at least 1 more (for the 5/4 victory) to come on board so they dismissed the cases rather than push it with the possibility of a loss. We need another conservative justice to get that win.

Failing a win in the court we need enough people to stand up and say a collective "NO" to the restrictions. That will happen if necessary but it is a last resort. It would push the court back from being the final judgment on our rights and return that power to the individual. We the people only allow the government powers granted in the constitution. No where in the constitution is any branch of government given the power to say what is or is not a right of the individual. Let the supreme court rule on that!

I agree with PaulS comments. I think the biggest problem with the Supreme Court is that is an election year and several of them are afraid of the election outcome, for what ever the reason. I think that is why Roberts is basically an activists judge when he thinks it suits the political atmosphere at the time.

If they all followed the constitution as written there would be no gun restrictions in the USA except for criminals in jail and people that were certified by a panel of psychiatrists and a jury.
Unfortunately those judges tend to listen to public opinion as well as political leanings.
None of our other rights are limited by law, why should we allow the right to keep and bear arms be restricted?