Seeing the Supreme Court make good decisions on gun rights over the last few years has been a welcome change of pace after what seemed like decades of left-leaning justices dominating the court.
But even with the wins, not every choice the court makes is the right one (based on an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment).
So, today, we’re going to talk about how the court made a good choice in a case… and a case in which they made the wrong choice.
Let’s start with the bad choice. Matthew Vadum gives us the details:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 decided not to take up Missouri’s bid to reinstate a stalled state law that prevents police from enforcing certain federal firearms laws.
This one should have been a no brainer. Whenever Federal laws infringe on the Second Amendment, they should be invalidated.
It’s simple and clear.
As I understand it, the Missouri law simply prevented state resources from being used to violate the Second Amendment rights of people in that state.
Which should be the court’s position on those types of laws anyway.
But even with that awful decision, the court is still making some good decisions, too, such as the following story, Jack Phillips writes,
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 3 to take up a new Second Amendment case related to a Hawaii law that bars the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, such as restaurants, malls, and many businesses.
The nine justices took up an appeal by three Hawaii residents who have concealed carry licenses, and a state-based gun rights advocacy group challenging Hawaii’s law while seeking to reverse a lower court’s determination that the state law complies with the Second Amendment.
Takin up this case was the right move on the part of the court, and, now, they need to invalidate that gun control law… and every other gun control law in the country.
What do you think? Tell us below.