“The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.” Justice Antonin Scalia
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 – ex-law enforcement officers, judges, politicians, or celebrities. That privilege is paid for with political power or campaign donations.
The bill of rights was designed to limit the actions of government but big government politicians turned that on its head so they can sell our rights back to a select few at an exorbitant price.
In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has become increasingly critical of restrictive gun laws and has a landmark case now pending, involving New York’s ban on carrying guns outside the home. During arguments a few weeks ago, majority justices gave every indication they would overturn the law, criticizing it for interfering with citizens’ rights to self-defense.
The Court’s decision won’t change the laws in New York, let alone change similar laws in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The Court’s decision, at most, might say that the New York law is unconstitutional and infringes on the right to bear arms. The ruling might also give guidance to judges when deciding carry-permit cases in the lower courts. But there is no guarantee that the New York state legislature will follow the spirit of the decision. The law they write might have to be litigated again if it 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.
Our reading of the 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 could also take parts of the most objectionable laws from other states and claim that their new permitting scheme satisfy the court’s ruling.
The New York legislature has already returned criminals to the streets of our inner cities. Through expensive fees and bureaucratic delays, they might again deny ordinary citizens the right of armed defense in public in the name 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
source: What the US Supreme Court Won’t Do For Our Right to Bear Arms, Rob Morse, AmmoLand; California Gun Law Headed to Supreme Court?, Los Angeles Daily News