Not Tired of Winning Yet CLVIII
The Supreme Court reached a crucial Second Amendment ruling in the case of NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL v. BRUEN, holding that a state may not limit the exercise of a citizen’s right to carry a concealed firearm for the general purpose of self defense to those who can prove a special need for self-protection above and beyond that of the general community.
The burden of proof was on the citizen to show he had need; the license could be granted or withheld at the sole discretion of the superintendent of police.
The High Court held that no such demonstration of special need was needed. A common citizen can now enjoy the same right to carry a pistol under his jacket that the body guards of Democrat politicians and donors enjoy.
The Court relied primarily upon the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742.
Heller held that the Second Amendment protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct: the long-standing leftwing canard that the Amendment applied to state militias was finally rebuked and exploded. McDonald held that the Fourteenth Amendment also limits state law likewise.
This does not strike down all unconstitutional limits on owning and carrying firearms, but it does strike down rule that gun laws are subject limitations when state interest outweighs the individual right. McDonald held that it is not the proper role for judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791.
The court goes on to say:
While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.
Please note that this was a 6-3 decision. The majority opinion was written by Thomas, and joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett. Three of those jurists were Trump appointees, and so this is a victory for him, and for us, and for the cause of Making America Great Again.
The Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.
Amusingly enough, the first footnote in the opinion is a sideswipe of the poor legal reasoning of the dissenters. It reads:
Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed by individuals with firearms. The dissent invokes all of these statistics presumably to justify granting States greater leeway in restricting firearm ownership and use. But, as Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783 (2010) (plurality opinion).
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
