Perhaps as soon as this week, the United States Supreme Court will issue a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The issue before the court is whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. However, it is the underlying facts that may ultimately decide whether Second Amendment protected rights are applicable outside the home. This case has the potential to be as significant as Heller and McDonald.
As with all Supreme Court cases, it could be a narrow decision applicable only to New York’s highly restrictive and discriminatory conceal carry permit laws, or wider to include other states with similar conceal carrying permits that require applicants to show “proper cause” or a “special need for self-protection”, namely California, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. There is also the chance this ruling may even include setting the standard by which all Second Amendment cases are to be decided.
What it is NOT is an expansion of Second Amendment rights. This is a lie created by the gun control groups to scare people into thinking they will be less safe. None of it is true.
Despite many people trying to pick apart, redefine, reinterpret or creatively reimagine it, the 27 words of the Second Amendment remain extraordinarily clear.
“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.”
One of the most widespread misconceptions about the Second Amendment is that it grants the right to bear arms. The truth is, it does nothing of the kind. It merely protects that right. The right to bear arms is considered a natural right, one that is not dependent on the laws or customs of any culture or government. Rights of this kind are also called inalienable or even God given rights, inherent to all persons.
Despite this, the nation, states and individual cities and communities have been writing laws to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms since it was adopted on December 15, 1791. In fact, those defending New York’s highly restrictive gun control law in Bruen note that the law is over 100 years old, thus they claim any reversal of it would be an expansion of Second Amendment rights.
But what the anti-gun zealots call an expansion, is in fact a reclaiming of rights that preexisted BEFORE the unconstitutional gun control law was put in place.
Sadly, Bruen shows how long it can take to reverse unconstitutional laws. If in fact the law in question is over 100 years old, then it took over 100 years for it to be successfully challenged and appealed to the United States Supreme Court to be (hopefully) ruled unconstitutional and reversed.
It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The only ones who benefit from the fight are the lawyers. The best way, the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place.
As is the norm now for cases being decided by the Supreme Court, states and cities around the country who disagree with projected decisions are preparing their response. Not how to fully comply with the decision mind you, that would mean they accept the decision of the highest court in the land. Since they know better than the Supreme Court, they are crafting ways to circumvent the new law-of-the-land and accomplish the very same thing just ruled unconstitutional in a new and creative way.
This is nothing new, especially in the gun control community. Each time a ruling comes out against a gun control law, the anti-gun zealots come up with new ones to take its place. States with highly restrictive concealed carry laws have been particularly good at coming up with new requirements like physical and mental health exams, training and qualifications, multiple interviews, waiting periods, numerous trips to the police station for appointments, all only available during the day during the work week, and ever-increasing fees, fees and even more FEES to help limit who they have to give a permit to.
Remember that each and every time a state has proposed eliminating permits for concealed carry, gun control zealots, led by the activist Giffords organization, has flooded the airwaves and internet with “research” and “studies” showing this would directly lead to people settling all their disputes in restaurants, bars, stores and the streets with guns. It would be the wild, wild west and there would be blood running in the streets of American cities.
Yet each and every time, the exact opposite has happened. Violent crime has gone down and public safety increases.
As we wait for the Bruen decision, let’s keep in mind what has been happening with regards to conceal carry across the country. 25 states now do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, otherwise known as constitutional carry. That’s half the country that says you don’t need government permission to lawfully carry a firearm outside your home. The national trend is clearly in the opposite direction from New York’s highly restrictive permitting scheme, and there are at least 25 states where we are all safer because of it.
It shouldn’t take 100 years to reclaim your Second Amendment protected rights. Only you can prevent unconstitutional gun laws from being enacted in the first place.
Yes, it does matter who you vote for.
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #SCOTUS, #Bruen, #ReclaimRights, #ReclaimNotExpand, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com