It may be an issue falling into the periphery since we are in the throes of an economic recession compounded by high inflation, but we’re winning on Second Amendment issues in the courtroom. It may seem like it happened years ago, but this past summer, the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was decided, and it’s been a silver bullet to most anti-gun laws. The ruling resolved the final questions regarding gun rights in America: do you have the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense, and are justifiable need clauses in ‘may issue’ carry states unconstitutional? The Court ruled that such a provision does violate the Second and Fourteenth amendments.
Justifiable need provisions within the concealed carry permit process are classic signs that you live in a blue state—you must provide proof that your life is in danger to obtain a carry permit. Multiple legal actions have challenged these protocols for nearly a decade, but all fell short of the Supreme Court granting certiorari until Bruen. Anti-gun states must now deal with the reality that their laws must be changed to give any law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and the proper preliminary safety course documents a carry permit. It’s not unprecedented; most states are ‘shall issue’ regarding concealed carry laws, as they should. Over a dozen states, Vermont included, are “constitutional carry,” meaning no permit is required for one to have firearms on their person.
At the time of the ruling, the liberal media went insane, saying this could lead to America becoming a warzone, among other things. The same reaction was exhibited after the Dobbs ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, with media figures expounding on how legions of women will die in the wake of this decision. It’s been over 100 days since Dobbs and Bruen. America is not Mogadishu, and no woman has died because of restrictions on abortion. In the meantime, the courts are starting to chip away at the entire legal foundation established by the anti-gun Left, and it’s about time (via The Hill):
A New York gun control law that prohibits firearms in Times Square, Yankee Stadium, the subway and other sensitive places is on shaky legal ground after a judge found these provisions violate the Second Amendment, though the ruling is paused while the case is appealed.
The ongoing court battle over New York’s gun control measure is just one part of a shifting legal landscape resulting from the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court’s expansion of the Second Amendment in a June ruling, which has led lower courts to block or strike down gun control measures at a dizzying pace.
[…]
“In the immediate aftermath, we’ve got a half a dozen courts who are striking down laws based on this decision,” said Jake Charles, a professor at the Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law. “I think it’s going to be shocking to people when we see the fallout from Bruen in the first six months.”
The Supreme Court’s prior term was dominated by the Republican-appointed justices’ overruling of Roe v. Wade. But the court’s aggressive pursuit of other conservative agenda items, like expanding the Second Amendment, is now coming into sharper focus as lower courts wrestle with the gun-rights decision’s implications.
[…]
In response to the Supreme Court’s late June ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on July 1 signed a law that criminalized the carrying of guns in airports, houses of worship, Times Square and other sensitive places, and imposed heightened licensing requirements. This prompted a swift legal challenge from the group Gun Owners of America.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Syracuse ruled for the gun-rights group, temporarily blocking key parts of New York law, known as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). In a 53-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby said some of the law’s heightened licensing requirements and location-specific bans — including the prohibition of guns in Times Square — went too far.
[…]
Second Amendment experts say a likely consequence of Bruen’s silence on key gun rights questions is that courts around the country will reach different conclusions about the law. For instance, it may be only a matter of time before the New York ruling comes into conflict with another federal judge’s different take on guns in “sensitive places.”
All of this means another big gun rights case could soon fall in the Supreme Court’s lap.
But this fight isn’t over. As the publication noted, there will be differing interpretations of “sensitive places” and what “historical tradition” means, so this battle is far from over. Part of this struggle now shifts to mere vigilance because the anti-gun Left is crafty and well-funded. The right to own firearms outside of service to a militia was finally decided with Heller in 2008, which then expanded that ruling to the states—Heller only dealt with federal enclaves.
The Second Amendment will remain under threat as long as there are Democrats in this country.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member