Believe it or not, federal courts have been looking into a question about if the Second Amendment’s inalienable right to “keep and bear arms” goes beyond inside your home. My own opinion is because of the ruling in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.
Progressive gun grabbers will manipulate, twist, and lie about anything to get your guns out of your possession, and they have been using the Heller decision disingenuously. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that Washington, DC’s rule that guns may not be kept open inside your home was unconstitutional. Progressives have done Olympian-style stretches to push the idea that the High Court really said that an individual does not have the right to bear arms outside the home, and that is a lie. The only reason Justice Scalia mentioned “inside the home” is that is what the Heller case was about; DC was barring individual gun owners from being able to have their guns openly inside their own home.
This new case involves a New York state law that mandates applicants who apply for a handgun carry license to show “proper cause,” or more than a “generalized desire” to “protect one’s person and property.” Applicants have to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” which in practice means that ordinary New Yorkers have no right to defend themselves with a firearm as soon as they leave their homes. That’s called an infringement on their Second Amendment rights.
Most other states don’t make demands like this, where they usually require that people who want to carry a concealed handgun check off a list of objective criteria. In my state of Pennsylvania, I checked off a single selection: Self-Protection.
However, there are several states that have laws similar to New York’s, invoking very vague and subjective standards like “good cause” (California), a special “reason to fear injury” (Hawaii), “proper purpose” (Massachusetts), “good and substantial reason” (Maryland), and “justifiable need” (New Jersey). All leftist states.
During this case the Supreme Court will hear the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association, along with a pair of New Yorkers who both unsuccessfully tried to obtain a carry license Rensselaer County, argue that these types of policies convert an individual citizen’s “right of the people” into a state privilege that is only experienced by those favored by the people who are in charge.
“A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court’s affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” the petitioners wrote.
They are referring to the Heller decision, the case mentioned above that overturned a local ban on handguns in DC. And as stated, while that decision focused on the right to “use arms in defense of hearth and home,” Scalia went out of his way to write in the majority opinion that the ruling recognized “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” more than anything else.
The leftist states that infringe on your right to carry want you to believe that you can only be attacked inside your home and that people are never faced with life-threatening violence out in public and that’s a load of bullschtein.
“Like the threats that might precipitate a need to act in self-defense,” the petitioners say, the right to bear arms “necessarily extends beyond the four walls of one’s home.” Amen.
Another point from the Heller decision that reinforces the petitioners’ argument is that the High Court said its ruling did not “cast doubt” on “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Think about that. It would have been necessary to write that into the Heller opinion if the right to bear arms for self-defense was limited to inside your home.
The Heller ruling also mentions bans on open carry of pistols that were overturned by 19th-century state supreme courts as “severe restrictions.” Again, it would not have been necessary to mention that if the right to bear arms did not apply to being out in public.
Last month, the liberal 9th Circuit declared that the Second Amendment has no bearing at all on a state’s authority to impose a ban on public carry.
In that ruling, the liberal court said that “the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.” That’s nuts.
In writing the dissenting opinion, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain complained that the majority’s position “reduces the right to ‘bear Arms’ to a mere inkblot.”
The petitioners say that due to laws like New York’s, “tens of millions of citizens are being deprived of individual, fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
VIDEO OF THE DAYIdiots Twerk On Ambulance After Shooting In Oakland, CA
Your right to defend yourself from criminals who will absolutely still have guns depends on how the Court rules on this case.
Rich is a conservative syndicated opinion writer and owner of Maga-Chat.com. He writes about politics, culture, liberty, and faith.
MAGA-Chat.com, where free speech is still free. JOIN the revolution!