Another 2A Win From Supreme Court

5
818

Anti-2A politicians keep trying to pass legislation and use executive orders to try to steal the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, and for quite a few years, with a liberal-leaning Supreme Court of the United States, there wasn’t much hope to change that situation soon.

But with a court with several Trump-appointed justices on it, all of whom are more Constitutionally-minded than the justices that were already on the court, we’re finally starting to see our Second Amendment rights respected by the court again.

More evidence of this comes from a recent case which could make the politicians and bureaucrats in one very liberal leaning state afraid (because they’re always afraid of legal gun owners even though the legal gun owners are the safe people). Matthew Vadum writes,

Advertisement

The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 3 that upheld one of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws, months after the high court expanded Second Amendment rights.

The Massachusetts law in question, the constitutionality of which is now in doubt, imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns—but not possessing them—on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involved the possession or use of guns.

The high court remanded the case, Morin v. Lyver (court file 21-1160), to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s landmark June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Massachusetts was previously added to Morin v. Lyver as an intervenor to defend the constitutionality of the state law.

The order was unsigned and no justices indicated they were dissenting from it. The justices didn’t explain why they granted the order.

In Bruen, a 6–3 ruling, the high court recognized a constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense and struck down New York’s law that required an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court also found that gun restrictions must be deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Here we have another Supreme Court decision acknowledging and respecting the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it’s a wonderful thing to see.

Now may be the time for legal challenges to all gun control laws to be filed as we could finally turn the tide against anti-2A zealots in state and local governments. That would be a good day, indeed.

Advertisement

5 COMMENTS

  1. What about people that have committed a non violent felony 20+ years ago some states your given your 2nd amendment right to bear back, but not the state of Maine! Just throwing it out there I think of how someone can really protect himself, family and property against someone with a firearm without one and in this countrys future I just don’t see how or even when

  2. What about people that have committed a non violent felony 20+ years ago some states your given your 2nd amendment right to bear back, but not the state of Maine! Just throwing it out there I think of how someone can really protect himself, family and property against someone with a firearm without one and in this countrys future I just don’t see how or even when that will ever change. Period!

  3. I’m with SCOTUS. state law can’t supersede federal law which would violate section 1 of the 14th amendment.
    Please do us all a favor and refer to gun grabbers as ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL then specify the 2nd as the topic of discussion. These SOBs like to say abortion is a constitutional right and was “on the books” for 50 years and go after firearms when the, part of the Bill of Rights, has LITERALLY been on the books for 231.

  4. Your writer, and perhaps your entire editorial team, need to delve deeper into the history of the Supreme Court, and in particular the work of Justices Alito and Thomas.
    Are you really going to claim Trump’s nominees are superior Constitutionalists to these men? You write your pieces as weapons, to fire and hit certain targets. But what you need, and need desperately, is editorial and journalistic integrity.
    Without it, you’re just going to suck up and fail.
    You’re probably familiar with firearm handling and effective use practices. You clean, you prepare. You follow safety guidelines and with practice you want to effectively and efficiently use firearms: putting down clay targets and other gaming systems to hone your skills even further. And you know what it means to field fire teams in combat who, to the man, are sharp shooters at least – and hopefully full-fledged sniper-quality shooters.
    Your writing needs that level of precision and discipline, and your team lacks that expertise.
    Please, seek the capacity to do better.

    • sure i bet they get right on that just as soon as you get the liberals to do the same. the left does nothing but hit pieces. most of them can not tell the difference between a weapon of war that is capable of shooting full auto and a civilian rifle that can only shoot semi-auto. also most of the leftist would tell you that the ar in ar 15 stands for assault rifle which it never has. when the bill of rights was wrote many years ago and the reason that we were able to win the war was that ordinary citizens had the same fire power as the army. it should still be that way today. we should be able to own equal fire power to what the army has. that was the way it was when they wrote the bill of right that was the way they meant it to stay.

Comments are closed.