What the Supreme Court Won’t do for Our Right to Bear Arms

Why I Am Suing The Governor of Virginia, iStock-1055138108
What the Supreme Court Won’t do for Our Right to Bear Arms iStock-1055138108

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- State legislators denied the ordinary person the right to bear arms in New York. That decision was upheld in state and lower courts. In New York City, the “privilege” to defend yourself with a firearm in public is only given to a select few. You need not apply unless you are an ex-law enforcement officer, a judge, a politician, or an elite celebrity. That privilege is paid for with political power or campaign donations. Remember that the bill of rights is designed to limit the actions of the government. Big government politicians turned that on its head so they could sell our rights back to a select few of us at exorbitant prices. Now, the US Supreme court will decide if the second amendment is a real right or only a forgettable footnote in the bill of rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision won’t change the laws in New York, let alone change the similar laws in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The court decision, at most, might say that the New York law is unconstitutional and infringes on the right to bear arms. The ruling might give guidance on the level of scrutiny to use when judges decide carry permit cases in the lower courts. There is no guarantee that the New York state legislature will follow the spirit of the court’s decision. The law they write might have to be litigated again if the new law also infringes on the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms. That court fight takes years if not decades.

The constitution does not enforce itself. At best, an expansive reading of the right to bear arms by the Supreme Court will allow advocates to bring suit in other states. They can challenge existing laws one at a time. For example, our reading of the court’s decision may indicate that laws in New Jersey are unconstitutional, but our opinion doesn’t matter. It is the opinion of judges at the district, appellate and circuit level that matters. We’ve already seen these judges ignore Supreme Court cases that support the right to bear arms like Heller and McDonald. At best, a favorable ruling might give us another tool in our appeals, but our rights are not secure.

The New York legislature might take parts of the most objectionable laws from other states and claim that their new permitting scheme satisfies the court’s ruling. The legislature has already returned criminals to the streets of our inner cities. Through expensive fees and bureaucratic delays, the legislature might again deny ordinary citizens the right of armed defense in public for reasons of “public safety” and “protecting vulnerable minorities”. The people most at risk from violent crime are poor minority women in our inner cities. They could again be disarmed by progressive politicians, by activist judges, and by a complicit press.

 

Even a favorable inclined supreme court only takes a fraction of one percent of the cases that are submitted for review. This case is another step to protect our right to bear arms, but it is not the last step. We’ve seen activist judges and politicians ignore the law before. I expect them to do so again.

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Winston Churchill


About Rob Morse

The original article, with sources, is posted here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, at Second Call Defense, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.Rob Morse

AmmoLand.com

Leave a Reply