Well, I have to say that this is a disappointment.
The Supreme Court of the United States over the last few years has made some particularly good rulings pertaining to the Second Amendment. And those were long overdue.
In particular, SCOTUS slapped down laws for the State of New York more than once to, basically, tell them to stop trying to steal Americans’ Second Amendment rights. (Of course, New York proceeded in passing even worse gun control laws after that. Talk about being psychotic about it…)
Recently, though, SCOTUS made what sounds to me like a bad ruling.
To be fair, I’m neither a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I am an advocate for the Second Amendment, and the text is pretty clear (if you don’t try to torture it and make up pretend meanings of the words to try to make them say what you want to say… like anti-2A activists do).
But why don’t you look into the details, and make up your own mind about this one? Matthew Vadum writes,
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 dismissed a firearms industry group’s challenge to a New York law that allows lawsuits against industry participants for alleged harms caused by their products.
The high court’s new decision took the form of an unsigned order dismissing an industry petition. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision.
The petition was filed by the lead petitioner, National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc., along with gun makers such as Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Glock Inc., Sig Sauer, and Smith & Wesson Inc.
Now, to be fair, maybe the challenge that was filed wasn’t made in a way that the court could rule in favor of. That does happen, after all.
But this just sounds like leaving the door wide open for lawsuits to try to shut down gun manufacturers which could, over time, make getting firearms more difficult if those manufacturers are driven out of business by lawsuits.
But what do you think? Is there a legal precedent unrelated to the Second Amendment which makes this ruling make sense? Tell us below.