Will Liberal Wing Of The High Court Continue or Remove Constraints via Bruen

Opinion

Justice iStock-1245041394
The NSSF denounces the 9th circuit courts recent ruling. IMG: iStock-1245041394

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- It is a rather curious thing, when one stops to think about it, that the broad right of self-defense, and the narrower fundamental right contained in it and inextricably bound to it—the fundamental, natural, and unalienable right of armed self-defense—would have to come up for review by the U.S. Supreme at all. After all, the right of self-defense/the right of self-preservation, and the concomitant natural right of armed self-defense are axiomatic; self-evident true.

One would think that a Country such as ours, with a rich heritage of cherishing natural rights, would not have to suffer enactment of laws that place so many hurdles in the path of citizens who wish nothing more than to be able to exercise the rights the Bill of Rights guarantees them. The Second Amendment, though, is treated by those jurisdictions, controlled by Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists as an outlier, even an outcast—a thing inconsistent with international norms and, so, something to be mercilessly attacked and eventually abrogated. Will this change?

Many people, both proponents of the natural right of armed self-defense and its detractors, speculate that a decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, when handed down next summer, could be expansive and all-encompassing and resurrect the Second Amendment’s status as a cherished right—a right absolutely essential to the maintenance of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and for the preservation of the Nation in the form of a free Republic for centuries to come.

But, even with an expected Conservative wing majority, a positive decision will likely not be as broad-based and all-encompassing as proponents of the Second Amendment yearn for and expect and as the Amendment’s opponents anticipate and dread.

Assume, for purpose of argument, that the High Court does strike down New York City’s notoriously oppressive and repressive “may issue” requirements involving the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses outright.

How will this impact similar statutes in other “may issue” jurisdictions? Past precedent appears to give us that answer.

The Bruen ruling won’t affect other “may-issue” jurisdictions. It won’t affect the prerogative of State and Local Governments in these other jurisdictions that have, in place, their own may-issue procedures. The Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to that in having reframed the issue, as I shall explain in this authors’ opinion below.

A ruling for Plaintiff Petitioner would probably, at best, only serve to strike down unconstitutional procedures established by the City’s gun Licensing Division. Such a ruling would not logically or legally entail the dissolution of “may issue” regulations. It would just impact the particular procedures the City presently employs when rendering its decision.

In order for a Bruen majority opinion ruling to be compelling, it would have to be all-encompassing.

This means the Court would have to rule that the very notion of “may issue” concealed handgun carry licenses, instead of “shall issue” concealed handgun carry licenses—in the absence of major failings in a person, including, for example, a felony conviction, a dishonorable discharge from the military, mental incompetence, or illegal alien residency in the Country—are logically inconsistent with the import of the right codified in the Second Amendment regardless of procedures utilized. See, 18 USCS § 922(g).

And the Court should render a ruling on this because geographical constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are absurd.

For, if a law-abiding, rational, responsible person has the right to preserve his or her life and safety with a firearm, being no threat to another innocent person, how is one’s life and safety to be adduced more valuable in one locale—one’s home say—but not in another locale, i.e., outside one’s home.

The Court should respond to this but won’t do that, and the reason is plain: Built-in constraints due to the framing of the issue before the Court preclude a decisive ruling on the exercise of armed self-defense outside one’s home.

That is not to say all the Justices would be pleased by this, for the idea behind “may issue” impacts and infringes the very core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. “May issue” is an affront to the Second Amendment and logically contradicts the very import and purport of the sacred right.

From their writings and musings on the Second Amendment, Justices Alito and Thomas would, if they could strike down “may issue” gun regulations across the board, both as utilized in the City of New York and around the Country. But they can’t. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to this.

Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were keenly aware of the ramifications of a major ruling on New York City’s “may issue” regimen if “may issue” were on the table. These Justices appear to abhor other profound rulings as in Heller and McDonald. The entire legality of “may issue” should have been on the table, but it isn’t.

Roberts and the liberal wing had thought very carefully through this, and they made sure that “may issue” gun licenses would not be targeted, even as Plaintiff Petitioner brought the very issue of “may issue” to the fore, as the question goes to the heart of whether, or to what extent, there should be limitations on where the right of armed self-defense is to be exercised.

There should be no geographical parameters defined apropos of one’s exercise of the right of armed self-defense but precedent indicates there will be.


About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PavePusher

‘Liberal’ judges are almost universally moral, physical, and intellectual cowards.

Wass

Knock it off already with this pessimism! Defeatism on our part will be a delight to the antis. Don’t doubt for a moment, the case for the plaintiffs is stronger and in more accord with the Constitution, American values and just plain morality than anything opponents can conjure up.

Wild Bill

I see it as staff the Congress, legislatures, county boards, and city councils with Constitutionalists, appoint more Originalist judges, purge the bureaucracy … restore the Republic.

swmft

that is not the problem ,judges ignoring what scotus says and the constitution with no consequences, 8 judges on 9th circuit should be gone disbarred no retirement. but nothing…. there will come a time shortly where people will have to choose do as told or what is right germans failed this test and the world saw a nasty war we cant fail it there is no one else to stand up for individual rights

RK-ARBALEST QUARREL

Thank you for your comment. While you may see this AQ article and others as alluding to defeatism, AQ sees itself as defeatism’s opposite. To be able to neutralize or vanquish one’s opponent in a war, a good strategist and tactician must take note of all contingencies in the coming battle. This necessitates not only probing for and isolating the weaknesses in the enemies’ forces but also being mindful of possible weaknesses in one’s own forces. In the context of the war for the soul of our Nation, we pinpoint the glaring inconsistencies, contradictions, and incoherent inanities inherent in the… Read more »

Vince Warde

We shall all see, but IMHO, it will be extremely hard – even with the reframing of the question – for the high court to avoid a ruling with nation ramifications. Furthermore, reframing or no reframing, the 5 solidly pro-2A justices can write whatever they want onto their opinion and if all five sign on to it, it becomes national controlling precedent – PERIOD.

Wild Bill

Yes, controlling precedent, which lower federal courts, state courts, counties, and cities, big and small can not get around … so they will just ignore it.

Last edited 22 days ago by Wild Bill
hippybiker

The only thing that can abrogate that hypothesis is, if the Supreme Court does what My State of Florida did. That was put in place State preemption for the Second Amendment, and put serious teeth into it!
The Supreme Court could legally force recalcitrant States to follow the Bill Of Rights! The6 did it with Roe vs Wade, and that doesn’t even protect a; enumerated right! Sadly, they don’t have the Cojones to do that!

Oldvet

WB…
I just read on Townhall PM where biden stated there is no “federal solution” to the wuhan , it has to be at the state level . Then jetted off to Delaware for the rest of the week. That was yesterday , he then called a lid at 10:13 this AM. That would blow the lid off of everything ! He told this to a bunch of governors . Article by Katie Pavlich . Been reading people are suspecting he is not well.

Oldvet

I read this morning the morning the white house is melting down because of that . (white house = the real presidential committee)

Oldvet

VW…
The hard can be done immediately , the impossible only takes a little longer .

nrringlee

No use of the term “Progressive” minus 10 points. No use of the term “New Left Progressive” minus five points. Otherwise well written and well constructed. Failing to call out our adversaries by their true names allows them to operate under the cover of cozy terms like”liberal’ when they are anything but liberal. On the court, on the left we now have a couple of New Left Progressives who openly reject the Natural Law basis of our Constitution and our legal system. They view your rights as tokens granted by or withheld by government. The majority, those you term ‘conservatives’… Read more »

Wild Bill

Geez … I thought Progressive was a cozy cover story. If we called them what they truly are we would be calling them Communists.

Finnky

“Progressive” or “Liberal” are words with actual meaning – completely disconnected to philosophies which claim the names.

I am a liberal because I believe in individual liberties. I am a progressive in that I support ongoing progression toward universal legal recognition of our civil rights (2A). That said I am neither a “Liberal” nor a “Progressive.”

RK-ARBALEST QUARREL

Thank you for your comment. You have raised an interesting issue involving linguistics and it merits a substantive response. AQ’s decision to avoid the use of the term, ‘PROGRESSIVE’ and ‘NEW LEFT PROGRESSIVE’ was a conscious one. We had utilized these terms in the past. But, we have come to realize that the legacy Press uses those terms as euphemisms to obscure the fact that what they really mean by the use of the term ‘PROGRESSIVE,’ is ‘MARXIST,’ and the latter term’ has allusions to derivatives of MARXISM, including ‘COMMUNIST’ or ‘LENINIST;’ ‘SOCIALIST;’ and ‘ISLAMIST EXTREMIST.’ Hateful, imbecilic creatures like… Read more »

Pretty Lies

“Assume, for purpose of argument, that the High Court does strike down New York City’s …” “A ruling for Plaintiff Petitioner would probably, at best, only serve to strike down unconstitutional procedures established by the City’s gun Licensing Division. Such a ruling would not logically or legally entail the dissolution of “may issue” regulations. It would just impact the particular procedures the City presently employs when rendering its decision.” When the author, an attorney, can’t even get the litigants to the suit right, it’s easy to tell this article is pure nonsense. New York City is not even a party… Read more »

Patriot Solutions

Even Scalia failed to get Heller correct which is a contributing factor to Bruen and many other cases previously brought or in progress right now but even so the courts rarely go by Heller and are still using levels of scrutiny. Obviously the solution is not one which can be found in the courts since they refuse to acknowledge their own precedent. Somebody should write the Republicans, oh wait Republicans wanted gun confiscation last time they had power. Heck, they still want it today. At any rate, the decision will likely be the big decision for a couple decades and… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by Patriot Solutions