This was a significant 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.
Joe Cunningham, my colleague reported on the bizarre reactions of some members of the peanut gallery. This included Keith Olbermann (ex-acting U.S. Attorney). Former U.S. attorney Preet Bhaara and Solicitor General Neal Katyal. 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.
However, the Democrats’ reaction to the election was delusional as well as 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 want to make it clear to the Supreme Court Justices that the only weapons of that time were muskets.” “I’m willing to return to muskets.” pic.twitter.com/xGoYKGE6g0
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 23, 2022
Okay, she must give up her phone, microphone and Botox. It’s possible she could be in serious 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 HOHUL: “Shocking. It is shocking to learn that reasonable restrictions have been taken from us. You can restrict speech. While you can’t shout fire at a crowd of people in crowded theatres, there is no restriction on speech under the Second Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/KamGJ7lCt6
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 23, 2022
“Shocking. It is shocking to learn that reasonable restrictions have been taken from us. You can restrict speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, but somehow there’s no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment?”
Despite the fact that Democrats try to use this restriction to justify their anti-constitutional tendencies, there’s no such restriction. 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. In his response, Joe Biden does not say that he agrees with the decision, even though he doesn’t like it. This seems like he has thrown out that standard. Indeed, it sounds like he’s calling for people to come out and protest this decision.
#BREAKING#Biden stmt re: today’s #SCOTUSThe ruling #guns-related case NYS Rifle & Pistol Assoc v. Bruen:
“I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. … I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on #GunSafety. Life is at stake. pic.twitter.com/m6RRVKKgTT
— 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.”
Check out the USDOJ statement #BruenConsider the fact that the Senate gun bill will allow the DOJ to fund grants for the enforcement and development of red flag laws in the state capitals. They do not care about 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. They are making a comment on it. 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. Will the Senate red flag laws it envisions surviving this decision? Or will they be swept aside by the DOJ preemptively?
This is especially concerning given the Democratic responses to the ongoing abortion case. It is time to throw out all norms. Are they going to accept these decisions? Will they enforce the decisions?
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
About Post Author
