90 Miles From Tyranny : The Supreme Showdown: Bruen Has The Makings of a Major Second Amendment Victory

Wednesday, November 3, 2021

The Supreme Showdown: Bruen Has The Makings of a Major Second Amendment Victory



On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will take up arguably the oldest and most controversial right in our history. New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen is the first major gun rights case in over ten years to come before the Supreme Court and it has the makings of a major gun rights victory in the making.

The case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” New York wants to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.

There are few constitutional rights that have been debated so long in this country as gun rights. Indeed, before other Englishmen were given a written guarantee of the right to bear arms, colonists in Virginia in 1607 were given such a written guarantee by the Crown. Since that time, the right to bear arms has been an engrained part of our culture and ultimately our Constitution.

Despite that history, the meaning of the right has remained the subject of heated debate. That is evident from the fact that it was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court finally recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

This is actually the second time in two years that the New York State Rifle Association has come knocking on the door of the Supreme Court. The Association previously challenged a New York law that imposed stringent conditions on the ability of gun owners to even transport their guns outside of their homes. The law was viewed by some of us as unconstitutional under existing case law, but New York politicians insisted that it would be defended all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, when the Court called their bluff and accepted the case, those politicians quickly changed the law and pulled the case before the Court could rule.

The bait-and-switch incensed members of the Court who delayed in the dismissal of the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for “manipulating” the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the condemnation and added menacingly that “some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

They ultimately did precisely that and took another case by the very same plaintiffs: the New York State Rifle Association.

The current court membership is arguably the strongest Second Amendment bench in decades. That includes Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong defense of...



Read More HERE

2 comments:

  1. Sounds more like a trap. Expect it to fail. Oh, there will be outrage, on the court... of course. But this will most likely fail. At this point, either you are law abiding, or you are an outlaw. You can't be both. And the law is against anyone who believes in the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I was young and foolish, I believed that the Constitution was what established and guaranteed our free society. I now realize nothing could be further from the truth. Practically every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights has been 'legally' usurped from the people. This upcoming court case will probably reinforce that opinion since they definitely will allow some further type of infringement. How many people realize that the Constitution is a contract between the government and the governed? That contract is null and void if the government fails to uphold its duty under it. The Constitution could not be originally ratified unless it contained the Bill of Rights, so amendments one through ten are sacrosanct and inviolable. I personally don't think anyone else cares anymore because it isn't too late yet...but they will after it is.

    ReplyDelete

Test Word Verification