The NRA-ILA is reporting that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has taken on its first Second Amendment case in a long while. SCOTUS has agreed to review an NRA-backed case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
The case centers around New York City issuing regulations that essentially prohibit legal handgun owners from transporting their unloaded and secured guns outside city limits. An immediate question popped into my mind. While a city might try to argue what should be allowed within its boundaries, how can a city dictate what leaves the city that is legal in the rest of the state? Since when does America stop at the city or state line?
Regardless, this regulation obviously infringes on an American’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Sadly, if not surprisingly, a U.S. District Court judge found that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment. (For those folks, what does?) There’s some judicial alchemy, right there. Hard-to-trust supposedly highly-educated people who obviously don’t know the meaning of the word infringed, especially when connected to “shall not be…,” or they don’t care, which is more likely.
This New York City regulation is the only firearms restriction like it in the country. As the NRA has noted, this regulation is as unique as it is bizarre. The “public safety” argument for the regulation offered by New York City government seems as thin as water-soaked tissue. How is the public endangered by law-abiding gun owners taking their legal firearms out of the city? Again, it’s quite curious that the anti-gun activist laws and regulations only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to deter the lawless. The NRA is optimistic about a positive ruling from SCOTUS, particularly with two new solid constitutionalists on the court. You know, people who do know the definition of infringed.
The NRA points out it has been a while since the Court has agreed to hear a Second Amendment case. The high-profile Heller (Washington D.C.) and McDonald (Chicago) cases in 2008 and 2010, respectively, were the last significant cases decided by the Court. In those cases, the rulings were significant and favorable to individual American’s gun rights.
We need to reestablish that positive trend because those rulings have not prevented anti-gun rights activists’ (and their billionaire benefactors’) infringement-seep from poisoning law-abiding Americans’ gun rights whenever they get a chance. We’re seeing restrictive laws and proposed laws and regulations being introduced and implemented all over the country. After all, even a bad state or local law that is obviously unconsititutional can remain in effect until SCOTUS rules on it.
The Court could remain narrowly focused and rule only on the facts of this specific case. Let’s hope they rule more broadly. As the NRA alluded to, “the Supreme Court will use the occasion to bring lower court defiance of the Second Amendment to heel…” Remember, without the Second Amendment, Americans effectively have no right to their natural right of self-defense.
Americans have suffered one setback after another from lower court rulings that continually uphold bad state and local anti-gun laws, ignoring that the Second Amendment is as much a civil right as the First Amendment. The anti-gun left also continues to ignore Supreme Court rulings such as Heller and McDonald, which clarified that the right to keep and bear arms is as much an individual right as the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, or any other natural right the people possess.
Perhaps it’s time for President Trump’s investment in constitutional originalists, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, to begin paying liberty dividends, including with a secure Second Amendment. Oh, and let’s pray for no more surprises like Chief Justice John Roberts with Obamacare. Not sure America’s health could take it.
