The anti-gunner lobby is about to take a series of “L’s” in the near future, and they better be ready for it. After the Supreme Court’s ruling on New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, lawmakers in California and New York passed a slew of measures designed to continue making it difficult for law-abiding Americans to obtain and keep firearms.
It was a desperate Hail Mary intended to salvage what they could of their most restrictive gun laws. But there are early signs that many of these measures will not hold up to scrutiny from the courts.
The Hill reported:
A New York gun control law that prohibits firearms in Times Square, Yankee Stadium, the subway and other sensitive places is on shaky legal ground after a judge found these provisions violate the Second Amendment, though the ruling is paused while the case is appealed.
The ongoing court battle over New York’s gun control measure is just one part of a shifting legal landscape resulting from the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court’s expansion of the Second Amendment in a June ruling, which has led lower courts to block or strike down gun control measures at a dizzying pace.
Judges in other states have struck down bans on guns that do not have serial numbers and have moved against measures that prevent an individual from purchasing a firearm if they are under felony indictment.
“In the immediate aftermath, we’ve got a half a dozen courts who are striking down laws based on this decision,” Jake Charles, a professor at the Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, told The Hill. “I think it’s going to be shocking to people when we see the fallout from Bruen in the first six months.”
The Supreme Court ruling on New York’s gun licensing scheme was widely panned by Democrats and others who oppose gun rights.
“But the court’s ‘historical tradition’ test has been roundly criticized as vague and offering little help to judges who are not trained historians,” The Hill noted. “The Bruen test also eliminated the formal requirement that judges weigh whether or not a challenged law is effective at preventing gun violence, which could undermine public safety.”
“The Supreme Court has adopted a test that’s going to make it hard to justify a lot of gun safety laws, including uncontroversial ones like background checks or bans on domestic abusers having access to firearms,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and an expert on the Second Amendment.
Good.
Those seeking to pass more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners should have to work to justify an infringement on the Second Amendment. Anti-gunner politicians should no longer be allowed to pass laws restricting the right to bear arms without a damn good reason.
New York’s gun licensing scheme was a prime example of unnecessarily restrictive measures that prevent responsible people from arming themselves. These types of foolish laws only embolden criminals, making it easier for them to victimize civilians. Indeed, anti-gun legislation is pro-crime legislation. People have the right to obtain the means by which they can defend themselves against violent criminals who have no problem getting firearms illegally. These rights should be protected, not stripped from the public.
We can expect to see more challenges to the many unconstitutional gun laws that exist – especially in blue states. In fact, I don’t think many of the measures that California and New York passed will survive the Bruen decision no matter how hard Govs. Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul try. There is a reason why it was a landmark decision. Now, more Americans will be able to exercise their rights to bear arms and protect themselves and their loved ones.
