Supreme Court Backs Right To Pack Heat in Public

Supreme

The Supreme Court issued another round of conservative decisions, guaranteed to inflame already angry progressives. Liberals across the state of New York are scrambling for fresh cans of Play-Doh and the closest comfortable safe space. One far away from concealed handguns, allowed to be carried disgustingly in public.

Supreme Court strikes ban

On Thursday, June 23, the United States Supreme Court “struck down a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago,” CNN writes. It unconstitutionally placed “restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home.” This opinion marks “the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade” and Democrats are going spastic over it.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote this one up for the majority which split 6-3 along partisan lines. “Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court opinion will have far reaching consequences because it “changes the framework that lower courts will use going forward as they analyze other gun restrictions.” It could also force changes in proposals currently making their way through Congress.

The majority’s expansion of what the Second Amendment protects will have monumental ramifications far beyond carrying firearms in public – on everything from age restrictions to assault weapons bans to limits on high-capacity magazines,” explains professor Steve Vladeck from the University of Texas School of Law. “We’re in for a whole new slew of litigation challenging any and every gun-control measure in light of the analysis in today’s ruling.” He’s CNN’s pet law expert, too.

Liberals are running out of ways to separate deplorable nationalists from their constitutionally guaranteed arms. Currently, five states have similar measures on the books. The Supreme Court says they’ll need to rethink their strategy in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

On the other side of the political rainbow, “Twenty-five states generally allow people to carry concealed weapons in most public spaces without any permit, background check or safety training.

Supreme

Promotes an important interest

So what if the law “promotes an important interest,” Justice Thomas wrote. That isn’t the standard called for in our Constitution. Judges at all levels need to look at both the text of the law and history “when deciding whether a law passes muster.” The Second Amendment isn’t confusing to anyone but Democrats.

As Thomas explains for the conservative majority, “only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.” That’s why they agree “and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand-gun for self-defense outside the home.” Period. End of discussion, the Supreme Court declares.

Joe Biden, already depressed that his $0.18 cent gas discount is going down in flames is “deeply disappointed” in today’s decision because he’s been trying to help progressives ram through new gun control laws. Forgetting that the Supreme Court Justices are the recognized experts on what is and isn’t in line with the Constitution, Joe thinks they’re wrong.

He issued a statement putting his ignorance in writing. “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all. In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society – not less – to protect our fellow Americans.” Protect us all you want, as long as it works under the Constitution.

The three Supreme Court liberals agreed on a counter-response. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to sign off on. “The primary difference between the Court’s view and mine is that I believe the Amendment allows States to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence that I have just described,” Breyer typed. “I fear that the Court’s interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves States without the ability to address them.

Tough, Samuel Alito wrote back on the side, “and how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article
Joe Biden

Hundreds DEAD... Their Blood is on Biden’s Hands

Next Article
Guard

DC Calls in Guard to Handle Dem Created CHAOS

Related Posts