2024 — Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
A brand spank’n new year is upon us, but a lot of the same old crappy baggage continues to hang on for another round. While we’ve seen a lot of progress with our efforts to protect and restore our Second Amendment protected natural rights, we’ve seen our share of setbacks too. The coming year is going to be full of battles in hostile-to-Second-Amendment-rights courtrooms and it’s the final outcome we need to focus on, not simply the ‘interim successes’.
Many of what I call interim successes have been to obtain preliminary injunctions or otherwise block enforcement of select portions of new, draconian gun control laws while the cases play out in the federal courts. They are simply a foot in the door of the looming legal battle. Actual victories include things like eliminating the requirement for a government issued permit to carry a firearm in public and stopping new gun control laws before they see the light of day.
A couple of cases in point for interim successes.
California’s Bruen Response bill SB 2, among other things, makes nearly every place in public, including all non-specifically posted private property, a “sensitive place” and thus off limits to anyone with or without a concealed carry license. Scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2024, a federal court issued a Preliminary Injunction on December 20, 2023, against 26 specific location types of the new law. This was certainly an interim success although it did not invalidate the entire list of “sensitive places” or the portion that eliminated 95% of the instructors providing conceal carry certification instruction in the state.
Then, on December 30th, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay against the preliminary injunction, clearing the way for the full text of SB 2 to go into effect at the first of the year. The stay is “pending resolution of the motion for a stay pending appeal by the merits panel”, which has no set schedule to resolve the issue.
In New Mexico, the Governor issued a total ban against carrying of firearms in public, licensed or unlicensed, in Albuquerque and all of Bernalillo County on September 8th as part of an executive order declaring so-called “State of Public Health Emergency Due To Gun Violence”. This 30-day executive order, renewed monthly since that time, also including a new state mandated monthly inspection of firearm dealers.
On September 13th, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the portion of the original executive order which banned all open or concealed carry in Albuquerque and the rest of Bernalillo County. A new executive order issued on September 15th now only bans public parks or playgrounds, or other public areas provided for children to play, an enormously nebulous definition. Untouched are the other provisions including the monthly inspections for firearm dealers OR the entire concept of implementing gun control via executive order.
While this plays out in court, the Governor has announced her intention to utilize this year’s 30-day legislative budget session beginning on January 16, 2024, to introduce a number of new gun control measures.
While preliminary injunctions and partial restraining orders are a step in the right direction, they are nowhere near a decisive victory. These are just a couple of significant cases heading towards a showdown in the United States Supreme Court, including:
Mock v. Garland (Pistol Brace Rule)
VanDeStok v. Garland (Frame or Receiver Rule)
Miller v. Bonta (CA “Assault Weapon” Ban)
Renna v. Bonta (CA Handgun Roster)
Multiple “Bruen Response” bills banning public carry of firearms in NJ, NY, MD & CA.
Along with numerous others.
The timing of when these cases get to the United States Supreme Court is likely to be the deciding factor in their outcome. Today there is a 5–4 conservative majority on the Court. All it will take is for ONE seat to be flipped during the current or ANY democratic administration, and these cases will go down in flames. Any progress in protecting or restoring Second Amendment protected natural rights will most certainly be reversed at the very first opportunity by a “liberal” Supreme Court.
Clearly, there is no such thing as “expanding” gun rights as the anti-gun zealots view any ruling against gun control laws. The United States Supreme Court has never expanded gun rights, and never can. They have only restored rights that were taken away by unconstitutional laws.
Also keep in mind there is a significant effort underway by the extreme left wing, both in Congress and in the (government funded) private sector right now to unseat one or more of the “conservative” Associate Justices, or at least force a recusal from several important cases coming before the Court. Public smears of fabricated ethics violations are being pushed against the “conservative” side, while suppressing allegations against the “liberal” side.
Of course, nothing can erase the absolute absurdity of a conservative vs. liberal point of view in any of our constitutional courts, least of which at the United States Supreme Court.
So as these cases play out their very expensive game in court, let’s not forget that two steps forward and one step back is still progress in the right direction. But at the same time, anything short of a complete and total repeal of these unconstitutional gun control laws is also two steps forward and one step back for the anti-gun side.
As a reminder, the ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.
Bob
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com
