On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for gun rights. The Court decided that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home” and that the New York law requiring a “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry license was unconstitutional.
My colleague Joe Cunningham reported on some of the unhinged reactions from the peanut gallery including Keith Olbermann, former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Bharara said, “SCOTUS read neither the room nor the Constitution correctly.” Funny, and perhaps telling that he doesn’t understand that the Court isn’t supposed to be ‘reading the room’ but deciding purely on the Constitution no matter what the ‘room’ says.
But the reaction of the Democrats in power was both delusional and concerning.
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul didn’t take the decision well. Indeed, she said they would fight for even more restrictions, despite the Supreme Court’s decision. Hochul said that if the Court wanted to consider the original meaning of the Constitution, she was willing to go back to “muskets.” She revealed not only how extreme she is, but how ignorant she is of the law.
KATHY HOCHUL: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets." pic.twitter.com/xGoYKGE6g0
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 23, 2022
Fine, then she has to give up her cellphone, her microphone, and her Botox. She might be in trouble. This is a false narrative that they push, as though the Founders couldn’t anticipate harmful weapons when, indeed, they had cannons and people could have those, despite Joe Biden’s lies to the contrary.
Hochul goes on to falsely make a claim about restrictions on speech that Joe Biden often makes, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
KATHY HOCHUL: "Shocking. Absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions. We can have restrictions on speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but somehow there's no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment?" pic.twitter.com/KamGJ7lCt6
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 23, 2022
“Shocking. Absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions. We can have restrictions on speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, but somehow there’s no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment?”
Indeed there is no such restriction, no matter how many times Democrats lie about it and try to use it to justify their unconstitutional impulses. As we’ve previously explained, that expression stems from dictum (meaning not binding as a legal precedent) in a case that was later overturned. So, it never had the force of law; it’s just something that people who want to grab your rights ignorantly say. It’s disturbing that she either doesn’t know that or that she doesn’t care about the truth–when she has a legal degree and should know.
Then there was Joe Biden’s reaction. Nowhere in this reaction does he say he accepts the decision despite not liking it. He seems to have thrown that norm right out the window. Indeed, it sounds like he’s calling for people to come out and protest this decision.
— Devon Heinen (@DevonHeinen) June 23, 2022
Biden said, “I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. … I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on #GunSafety. Lives are on the line.”
The DOJ also issued a concerning statement, again not saying that they would uphold the decision but saying they “disagree.”
Read USDOJ's statement on #Bruen and then ponder the fact that in the Senate gun bill the DOJ will fund the grants enabling the development and enforcement of "red flag" laws in state capitols. They are not interested in protecting your constitutional rights. pic.twitter.com/oKFOVZQt5x
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) June 23, 2022
It isn’t up to the DOJ to disagree — it’s supposed to be an objective, non-political entity enforcing the law. They’re not supposed to be making political comment. Why are they commenting at all on this? And are they saying they won’t enforce the law or act in accordance with the decision?
Jennifer Van Laar mentions in her tweet the proposal wending its way through the Senate now that envisions the states imposing red flag laws, that the DOJ isn’t interested in protecting your rights and they show it by this statement. But given this case, will the red flag laws the Senate is envisioning even survive this decision, or does it pre-emptively cut their legs out from under them?
These Democratic reactions are concerning particularly following the Democratic reactions to the pending abortion case. Talking about tossing norms out the window. Will they be accepting the decisions? Are they going to enforce them or not?
But seriously, is DOJ advocating nullification or just trying to scaremonger by implying that federal gun laws are impacted by today’s decision?
This is an odd statement from an increasingly political agency—which should be anything but.
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 23, 2022