Skip to content

The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices

November 7, 2021

I was listening to the oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen. I found the judges on the US Supreme court both fascinating and frightening. To me, their questions showed the narrow life experiences of a supreme court judge. Before I commit the same error that these judges made, I must admit that the justices are not all the same, and their experiences are certainly different than mine.

Justices as of November, 2021

This particular legal case asks the court to decide if ordinary people can legally carry ordinary firearms in ordinary places. Time and again, the judges asked the petitioner’s counsel if he were asking that guns belong in extraordinary places. To take a few examples, the judge was implying that honest gun owners should be disarmed at schools, at public gatherings, on the subway, and at sporting events.

Lawyers want to restrict their arguments to the narrow question asked in the case. What I found fascinating were the judges’ assumptions.

The judge assumes that schools are safe and that guns should be outlawed there. I’ve studied our history and I know that schools are dangerous places where innocent children have been attacked. My experience may be unusual since I’ve worked to make schools safer with programs that trained school staff to be first responders, to stop an attack and treat the injured unto police and EMTs arrive.

My experience may be unusual since I know co-eds who were raped as they walked home from class late at night. They were disarmed because the campus was a “gun free zone”. No, the campus wasn’t a “gun free zone” to the rapist who brought his gun. It sounds as if the justices think that laws enforce themselves and that criminals obey our laws.

That isn’t my experience. My friends have the painful history to prove it. Evidently, that history and what we learned from it isn’t obvious to some supreme court judges.

One judge asked if the state could outlaw concealed carry at public gatherings like Time Square on New Years eve, or at bars and restaurants where alcohol is served. Again, I heard the question as a confession by the judges.

The judge thinks that restaurants and bars are made safe by ink on paper. If we’re going to outlaw guns, then wouldn’t bars be safer if we also outlawed carrying keys in a bar so we wouldn’t drive while intoxicated? I’m afraid the judge would say that we should outlaw keys in bars too. To me, it sounds as if the judge thinks we depend on laws to get home safely.

Map of crimes in and around Times Square, New York

Do the judges really think that police have made Time Square a safe place for me and my family? I don’t believe that for a minute! Fortunately, ordinary people like us developed our own solutions that are both more sophisticated and more tailored to our specific needs than the crude tool of law. My experience, while limited, is that bars and restaurants are made safe by the designated driver who is carrying both her keys in her pocket and a firearm on her hip. It is she who protects her friends who might imbibe. When my friends go to places like Times Square, they are kept safe by men and women who are looking outward to spot trouble before it reaches them.

For the judges, what is out of sight is out of mind. For example, they ask if we should be allowed to carry at sporting events. They claim that getting wanded at a turnstile makes us safe. I remember where unarmed fans were beaten to the ground and brain-damaged by gangs at the stadium. Clearly the state did not make those locations safe for the common man. Our safety is primarily our concern rather than the state’s concern.

Going to an extreme example, if a town putts up a sign that says, “no guns allowed”, is that enough protection so we should be compelled to give up our right of armed defense? Regardless of what we say, I observe that a plastic sign isn’t enough protection so that judges, politicians, and their security teams decide to go unarmed.

At the other extreme, we’ve seen mass murder occur where there were both police and metal detectors providing security as you entered a fairgrounds. Despite those precautions, the murderer simply walked away from the security checkpoint and crawled under the fence. The city delivered security theater rather than a real defense. In fact, we see fewer injured victims and injured bystanders when armed civilians defend themselves. I’m left wondering why the judges didn’t understand that history when they asked their questions.

This is pure projection on my part, but I was left wondering if judges were asking where they could go to get away from those dangerous gun owners. They speak as if they are oblivious to the reality of armed defense in the USA.

Clearly, my experience is different than theirs. So is yours. I’ve been in a room with hundreds of armed men and women. That isn’t some exotic training site, but an ordinary class at a school that taught armed defense to civilians. I’ve been on a convention floor with tens of thousands of armed men and women who were at that convention with their families. That is simply an NRA annual meeting. Even those rather ordinary situations are outside the judges’ experience.

I want to put this at a personal level. The judges said that open carry was a substitute for concealed carry so that ordinary people could exercise armed defense. Would the judges apply those rules to themselves and their family? The people who guard the judges are not routinely limited to open carry, and for good reasons. Their security staff carries everywhere the law allows. They are not restricted to carry when a defined threat is made against a particular justice at a particular time and place.

If judges are extraordinary, then so is every college co-ed. Who is assaulted more often, a judge or a co-ed?

I thought the judges exhibited a profound lack of empathy for the common man or woman. Would they require that their relatives be restricted to open carry and denied all other forms of defense?

Like many of us, the judges don’t know what they don’t know. Perhaps they only know what they see on the news. Then again, I suspect that you have seen and done many things the judges don’t even know exist.

There is wisdom in humility.

I gave you a thousand words. Please share them with a friend.


Crime in Times Square- “

Transcript- “

Audio- “

12 Comments leave one →
  1. KUETSA permalink
    November 8, 2021 1:04 am

    It seems as though NY is resigned to the reality that they will no longer have their select “club of special citizens” that possess unrestricted carry licenses for self defense. Retired law enforcement officials, judges, celebrities, and rich, powerful, politically connected people, will no longer run under the radar while enjoying armed security as the “select few”.
    So now, all of a sudden, as if the FIRST firearm was just invented, we need to discuss “SENSITIVE PLACES”!
    Could a retired cop carry concealed on the subway?
    Could a celebrity carry in Times Square on New Years Eve?
    Could a judge carry in an establishment that served alcohol?
    The rules are in place . . . and NOW we’re going to panic?
    None of this has been a problem, with the NUMEROUS concealed carriers that have always legally dwelled among second class citizens who were kept unarmed by law.
    I fear that now, if I know NY State, and NY City, an intricate web of “SENSITIVE PLACES” will be built that will make it all but impossible to commute to and from work while being legally armed. And even though charges for guns used in violent crimes will be dropped, and criminals will be released back to the streets without bail under bail reform laws, being caught in a “SENSITIVE PLACE” with your LEGAL gun, will result in VERY SERIOUS CHARGES!
    Like NY SAFE Act penalties for being caught doing nothing more than possessing previously legal items, and not surrendering or disposing of them, committing no violent crime, many years in jail, and a very high fine.
    And they will “throw the book at you”! No bail reform here!
    Defend yourself against a criminal with a legal gun, God Forbid, probably gonna be trouble.
    (Ask the McCloskeys)
    And lastly, if I know NY, there will one way or another, be some kind of EXEMPTION (Same as for NY SAFE Act restrictions), that will somehow, someway, create a situation that will make the “SENSITIVE PLACES” rules NOT APPLY TO THE “CLUB OF SPECIAL CITIZENS”, thus ensuring that second class citizens, remain, second class citizens.
    Welcome to NY.
    PS – Thanks for all you do to advance Second Amendment Freedom.

    Liked by 1 person


  1. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices – Military Veterans of Disqus
  2. Could Supreme Court Justices Use a Little More Exposure to Real Life? – New York News Today
  3. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices –
  4. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices – Metal Guns
  5. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices – Point Blank Holsters
  6. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices – Real Guns People
  7. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices | The Gun Point
  8. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices – Sprent Brass
  9. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices - Guns in the News
  10. The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices - Shackle Media

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: