U.S. Supreme Court (Finally) Takes Another Second Amendment Challenge to Gun Control

Opinion

Knife Rights' NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court
Knife Rights' NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- This week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a gun control law for the first time in nearly 10 years. Arguments in the case will likely be heard during the court’s next term, which starts in October of 2019.

During the opening decade of the 21st Century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings that many hoped would revitalize the Second Amendment, which had been all but read out of the Constitution by activist lower judges that favored banning or heavily restricting firearms.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) made abundantly clear that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and should be respected as such by the nation’s courts and public officials.

That did not happen.

Instead, the rulings seemed mainly to energize the resistance to the right to keep and bear arms both within and without the judicial system.

Billionaires turned social engineers – most notably Michael Bloomberg – created a new industry around more sophisticated and organized anti-gun efforts.

Elite universities created research departments entirely devoted to engineering empirical support for gun control and rewriting American history as it pertains the Second Amendment and gun ownership.

The same judges with their same lifetime appointments who refused to acknowledge the obvious import of the Second Amendment’s history and text refused to acknowledge the obvious import of the Heller and McDonald opinions.

And one lower court decision after another upheld the most sweeping and oppressive forms of gun control, including bans on America’s most popular rifles, bans on magazines used for self-defense, bans on dealer sales of handguns to military-aged adults, mandatory handgun licensing fees of $340, discretionary licensing for the carrying of firearms, lengthy waiting periods to acquire guns, and infeasible manufacturing requirements that effectively ban new models of handguns.

Throughout it all, the high court seemed to have turned its back on the Second Amendment, refusing review in case after case. This sometimes provoked impassioned dissents from justices who believed the Second Amendment was being treated as a “disfavored right” and a “constitutional orphan.”

Only once in all this time did the U.S. Supreme Court revisit the Second Amendment in an unsigned opinion that summarily reversed, without argument, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion that upheld the state’s ban on electrically-powered “stun guns.”

That changed on Tuesday when the high court granted review to the NRA-backed case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. This case concerns a challenge under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions to New York City regulations that effectively ban law-abiding handgun owners from traveling outside the city with their own secured and unloaded handguns.

The bizarre and unique nature of this regulation – apparently the only one of its kind in the nation – and the exceedingly thin “public safety” justification for it potentially make the case low-hanging fruit for another positive Second Amendment ruling.

But whether the Supreme Court will use the occasion to bring lower court defiance of the Second Amendment to heel or simply to rule narrowly on this particular regulation remains to be seen.

The development does, however, underscore the importance to gun owners of President Trump’s appointments to the high court, including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brent Kavanaugh.

The latter replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was considered the crucial swing vote in the Heller and McDonald cases. Yet Kennedy’s sustained commitment to a robust Second Amendment was always in question, leading to speculation that neither the court’s pro- or anti-gun blocs had the confidence to take another case.

Unlike Kennedy, however, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are committed originalists, the same mode of judicial interpretation that the late Justice Antonin Scalia used in authoring the Heller opinion. Fidelity to that method and to the court’s opinions in Heller and McDonald are the surest guarantees we can have that the Second Amendment will get the respect it is due by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Left-leaning pundits are already issuing hysterical predictions about what this development means for gun control in the United States.

May they be right and then some!

The more sober and mature outlook, however, is a wait-and-see attitude, along with a healthy appreciation of how President Trump’s appointments to the court may finally reenergize a Second Amendment that has been neglected for too long.

Those appointments would not have happened without the steadfast work of NRA members who understand the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court as the final backstop against infringements of our Second Amendment rights. We may now be on the threshold of realizing the fruits of that labor.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 27
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    15 Comment threads
    12 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    20 Comment authors
    GrimThe RevelatortomcatRobert MessmerSchofield Kid Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    Time will tell if we do have a conservative court or another problem. What do these people do all day? They can’t be that busy because they take so few cases per session. That sure is a good lifetime job that no one can fire you from.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Bingo Tomcat

    Tim L.
    Guest
    Tim L.

    The real issue here is, IF YOU TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHILE HOLDING UP YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ENDING THE OATH BY (SO HELP ME GOD) your a criminal of treason, and for treason the penalty is death. Thus, we now have the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE! So many walking dead, time for a purge.
    Just my opinion, it’s like an a-hole. Everyone has one.

    ras
    Guest
    ras

    Don’t be too quick to celebrate. The SCOTUS in it’s current configuration is very unpredictable except for thos judges on the Left.

    John Galt
    Guest
    John Galt

    Bump stock ban, proposed federal red flag orders, the senate screwing concealed carriers…….you keep the faith mrc

    rich z
    Guest
    rich z

    New York ,alone, has over 100 laws that are ANTI- GUN and still counting.

    jim
    Guest
    jim

    they can pass what they want i will not comply i am done with that .

    24and7
    Guest
    24and7

    People rejoice over SCOTUS hearing a gun case?..I would be scared to DEATH of that.. After some of the decisions these boneheads have made here lately..No one can depend of Kavanaugh, Gorsich and most of all John Roberts..NEVER FORGET BABE RUTH GINSBERG..Once they rule against gun owners.. THATS ALL FOLKS… a lot of the rulings they are making here lately are a rubber stamp for the lower courts..YIKES!!

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    That’s why I have always advised people to put their faith in the Constitution, not the courts. I once had a discussion on here with a man who told me that because the supreme court said so, a certain issue was settled law. I pointed out the courts failings starting from the late 1790’s and then asked a very important question. I asked would he apply that same standard if the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right, if he would throw up his hands and say “Oh well it’s settled law.” That ended the… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Gorsuch was a great nomination.

    Kavanaugh however is a different animal. He has not proven to be an originalist so far, and he may end up being another Kennedy. DO NOT PUT MUCH FAITH IN HIM YET. It remains to be seen. Just remember, he was not an original on the infamous “List” of approved judges, he was an add in after Gorsuch.

    Rat Wrangler
    Guest
    Rat Wrangler

    I think the only limitations the courts should put on the Second Amendment should be proof of competency. I have no problem with a private citizen owning even a fully automatic weapon if he can prove he is mentally stable, not on probation, and can use the weapon properly and responsibly. Before someone jumps in and cries, “its a Constitutional right…”, let me point out that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the second paragraph of the Constitution, and our government regularly denies people liberty, and occasionally denies them life, hopefully for good reasons. Gun laws should… Read more »

    Ton E
    Guest
    Ton E

    It goes beyond the constitution it’s an inherent right. At what point short of a criminal conviction is it acceptable to take away a right? The short answer is its not. Having to prove to the government you can exercise a right with the consequence of not being about to utilize it is an infringement. Your idea is quite fuddish.

    Ton E
    Guest
    Ton E

    Not being able to utilize it*

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Rat Wrangler The reason Government denies “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happlness(originally property)” is because said individuals have violated those same rights of others. No man has the right to over rule the rights of others just because he wants to. Ownership and use of Arms is a preexisting right. If you have to ask permission and wait until some fat back-sided bureaucrat decides whether or not you are qualified, then it isn’t a right. You are entitled to feel the way you do, but you do not have a right to force that on the rest of us.… Read more »

    Ton E
    Guest
    Ton E

    BOOM

    Robert Messmer
    Guest
    Robert Messmer

    Quote: “…let me point out that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the second paragraph of the Constitution,…” I believe you have conflated the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution unless you can point out where in Article I you are talking about. Quote: “…if he can prove he is mentally stable, not on probation, and can use the weapon properly and responsibly.” Why should the burden of proof of being mentally stable be on the individual? Would you be amendable to applying these restrictions on other rights? For example, it can reasonably be claimed that… Read more »

    mrc
    Guest
    mrc

    Al I agree with you 100% its a good thing pres trump is setting records appointing reel judges uphold the constitution its called draining the swamp if you think the d rats and the lamestream media are nervous now wait till ruthie says good nite Nanashi the nra has been fighting for this for yearsl

    Albert
    Guest
    Albert

    The ‘Federal Courts’ are CORRUPT; a majority of the judges are ‘politicians in robes’ and most are leftist activists; like the Yo-Yo in Hawaii saying the ‘muslim ban’ was illegal cuz Trump made some statement on the campaign trail. No case is judged on the ‘merits’ or what the ‘statute says’, it’s all about ‘fairness’ and feelings.

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    fair is where you can buy cotton candy if you have enough money. feeling is what your spouse might allow in private.

    Nanashi
    Guest
    Nanashi

    NRA patting itself on the back when it had nothing to do with it. Typical.

    Justista
    Guest
    Justista

    NRA utilized a lot of our money effectively to get these things done. If not for them you would be walking around wherever you live unarmed.

    Steven schott
    Guest
    Steven schott

    I prey that the court does the righy things and brings back our rights to to protect oursekves, our fanilies, and even others from the rrue criminals. The ones trying to disarm the american people and the many that have sworn to uphold our rights as citizens and the many who have died to protect our rights. These rights if in other countries would not have the dictators who have disarmed their people so they cant fight back and have to flee their own countied for safety. People need to stand up for what they believe in and not be… Read more »

    Schofield Kid
    Guest
    Schofield Kid

    Ever consider proofreading?

    Carl Ferrigno
    Guest
    Carl Ferrigno

    The left can make all the laws they want (there are currently already 20,000 guns laws on the books in the US) it will be another thing —— to collect them……..
    Automobile related deaths are still 40,000 each year ! BAN CARS !!!

    Robert Messmer
    Guest
    Robert Messmer

    As to banning cars, there is a potential Democrat candidate for President in 2020 that actually wants to do just that. Not because of the deaths but because of climate change.

    mrc
    Guest
    mrc

    thanks to pres trump and the nra we are at where we are at now because or these two VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE I will never lose faith in them

    Grim
    Guest
    Grim

    Trump rolled on bump stocks!