Overreaching gun control laws in cities run by progressive Democrats could soon be moot if the country’s highest court determines that the notion of self-defense against violent criminals is a right, and not a privilege for the wealthy.
With how dysfunctional the court seems to be, nothing is a given.
The U.S. Supreme Court could soon be primed to deliver a historic ruling which finally allows citizens of Democrat-run cities to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That’s if the court’s conservative majority agrees that a right is inalienable.
The fate of the Second Amendment for millions of Americans is also dependent on whether liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer can get over his fear that Americans might start shooting one another at soccer games — and whether the court’s more conservative judges can come to a consensus on the issue.
NBC News reported Friday that the high court this week began debating a New York law that forces citizens to pass a sort of litmus test before exercising their right to carry guns outside of the home. With how dangerous big cities can be, one would assume that anyone in fear of their safety could carry a weapon.
That is of course not the case, especially in New York.
In New York, citizens must prove beyond any reasonable doubt and then some that they are deserving of the right to carry firearms to protect themselves from those who live among us who are dangerous. That essentially makes them no-good, liable miscreants until their money or influence proves otherwise.
No application for a concealed carry license is destined for approval in the Empire State. Normal people have sued over the denial of their gun rights, and so justices debated the issue for several hours this week, according to the report.
“I think that people of good moral character, who are drinking a lot and are maybe there for a football game or some kind of soccer game can get pretty angry at each other. And if they each have a concealed weapon, who knows?” Breyer cautioned.
Another judge on the court’s liberal wing, Elena Kagan, asked: “What about the New York City subways?”
Meanwhile, conservative justices also reportedly weighed in.
“People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can’t be armed?” asked Justice Samuel Alito, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked: ”Why isn’t it enough to say, ‘I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?'”
Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, reportedly sided in favor of the rights of good citizens in New York to carry guns.
“The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights,” Roberts reportedly commented.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an unreliable wild card since joining the court, apparently didn’t know what to make of an inalienable right. She reportedly commented: “Can’t we just say that Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place?”
We likely don’t have to wonder where Justice Clarence Thomas sits on the issue. Thomas, a reliable defender of civil liberties, is surely all-in on allowing law-abiding citizens to walk around armed.
Justice Neil Gorsuch appears to be the decider on the issue, as NBC News did not mention him in its reporting of the court’s deliberations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was also not mentioned.
But she is most certainly a hard no on the issue of all Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Of course, Americans shouldn’t have to ask to use their gun rights, especially in big cities. After all, rights granted by the Constitution in other amendments aren’t decided by people in robes. People in places such as Hope, Arkansas, don’t have to ask before they speak, nor do they in areas of rural Montana and urban Florida.
Gun control laws have failed places such as New York. The only people who are actually carrying guns around in large numbers in that city and others are criminals. Perhaps the court will finally reach a decision on the issue of gun rights for the first time since 2008 — when the court decided that local officials could interpret a right, such as the one regarding firearms, any way they pleased.
The court is expected to hand down a ruling by June of next year. Hopefully that’s not too late for Americans who are facing the reality that criminals are feeling emboldened in President Joe Biden’s America.
Breyer shouldn’t be the deciding factor in who can and cannot defend themselves against crime. Few people in this country watch soccer, anyway.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.