On March 13, 2017, Marc Stephens filed a petition for rehearing requesting that all 9 United States Supreme Court Justices hear his petition for writ of certiorari. Marc Stephens filing my be perfect timing as Judge Neil Gorsuch is expected to fill the vacancy of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly last year, sparking a more than year-long feud among senators about the future makeup of the high court.

The clerk for the Supreme Court of the United States informed Stephens that the Justices are set to hold a closed conference regarding his petition and motion for rehearing.

On Monday, April 3, 2017, Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee which sends his nomination to the full Senate body for a final vote.

Judge Gorsuch is incredibly qualified and the ultimate example of a mainstream judge with a history of defending the Constitution. In the more than 2,700 cases he has participated in on the 10th Circuit, 97 percent of them have been unanimously decided and he was in the majority 99 percent of the time. 

Judge Gorsuch has met with nearly 80 Senators, answered 299 questions from Democrats, provided over 70 pages of written answers about his personal record, answered nearly 1,200 questions and has sat through nearly 20 hours of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

President Trump made a promise to the American people to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who will uphold and defend the Constitution. By nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch, he kept that promise. This week, the full Senate will vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, marking a great victory for the American people.

Despite the case seeming to be very straightforward, there is still a possibility that the court will not hear the case. Refusing to hear a case is not the same as issuing a decision, but it is a strong signal that the court believes that the legal issue in question is clear and does not require intervention.

Marc Stephens states the four reasons why his petition for rehearing should be granted.

Marc’s first argument states that the case has 'merit' because New Jersey 'admits' that they are enacting gun control laws.

Marc states, “The Bill of Rights is expressed in what we call Truism – meaning the sentence is verbatim, no explanation is necessary”…and “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) at 177.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."

In addition Heller states, "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree”, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008 at 2809.

“The Militia is armed by Congress in Article I Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution. The People are Armed in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t give us rights, it protects the common law rights“, says Marc Stephens.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As Marc points out, the controlling firearm case in New Jersey actually admits to enforcing “gun control laws” which states, “Permits to carry handguns are "the most closely regulated aspect" of New Jersey's gun control laws. In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 573 A.2d 148, 150 (1990). Individuals who wish to carry a handgun in public for self-defense must first obtain a license. N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-5(b)”, see Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2013 at 428-429.

Marc points out that the Supreme Court ruled: “The state cannot “enact any gun control law”, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court 2010 at 3046, and “The State cannot interfere with the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the fourteenth amendment, under `privileges and immunities.'" McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020, at 3077-3083.

Marc Stephens second argument states that the Supreme Court has “Original Jurisdiction” Under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear the case because “the State of New Jersey is a party”.

Marc’s petition states, “Despite the 3rd Circuit erroneously denying Petitioner case based on a technicality, this court can hear this case by exercising its judicial powers under Article III, Section 2 which reads: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact”. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 - Supreme Court 1803 at 173”.

Marc’s third argument for granting the motion is because he has “Standing” pursuant to the First Amendment and Article III of the United States Constitution.

Standing, or locus standi, is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to, and harm from the law, or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he or she will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

Marc’s petition reads, ”There is a “causal connection” between the “injury in fact” and the conduct complained of because the State of New Jersey, who is “before this court”, denied petitioners right to keep and bear arms which is a “legally protected interest” under the second amendment of the United States Constitution”.

The fourth argument states that the petition was viewed by an eight-member bench, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and should be reviewed by a full court. Marc is banking on the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch.

A final confirmation vote on Gorsuch is not scheduled until Friday, April 7, 2017, when 52 Republicans and at least three Democrats — from states won by Trump in last year’s election — are expected to vote for him to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the high court.

The Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to hold the conference regarding Marc Stephens' Petition for rehearing on Thursday, April 13, 2017, and will issue the order on Monday, April 17, 2017.

Read Marc Stephens’ Petition for Rehearing - A Must Read!

Like us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter!