These unconstitutional laws and ballot measures will continue to be introduced by politicians that disagree with our right to self defense. They are confident that it will be expensive, risky and time consuming to correct their draconian actions in the courts.
Ultimately, the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision will help us correct all of these infringements on our rights because of Justice Thomas’ very clear approach to resolving these issues.
Most people don’t understand how powerful his logic was in the opinion he filed for the majority of the Supreme Court. He observed that for the ten plus years since the Heller decision (in which the court embraced “intermediate scrutiny” of laws that infringed on the Second Amendment), the court witnessed nothing but further infringement on our rights. Slow, sure, steady nibbling away at the meaning of “shall not be infringed” by people with a clear agenda. Justice Thomas said that as of now – June, 2022 – that stops.
Heller had established a two step test for any law passed by legislatures or other governing bodies. The first step was “is this – on it’s face – infringing on the Second Amendment?” If the answer was “yes” ,the court went on to a second step where it asked, “is there a justifiable social benefit at an intermediate level of judicial scrutiny to that infringement?”. This “wiggle room” was where every court kept failing our nation thanks to the gun grabber “gaslight gangster” agenda of the gun controllers. These organized criminals don’t care about your self defense rights, they just hate guns, gun owners and your ability to stop criminals. Why doesn’t matter.
Justice Thomas said, no more two step process. If the law is – on it’s face – infringing in any way on the Second Amendment’s recognized right to keep and bear arms, then the law is unconstitutional. Period. End of story.
Several cases were sent back to the lower courts after the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. They are now in process. So are others working their way through state and Federal courts.
The standard is now based on the meaning of the Second Amendment when the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791, and when the Constitution was incorporated as applying to the states with the 14th Amendment in 1868. If the law (it’s language and meaning of it’s words) would have infringed on the right to keep and bear arms in those years, the law is unconstitutional. Period.
There were no magazine capacity limits in 1791 or 1868. So, eventually the magazine capacity limit laws will all be overturned.
There were no cosmetic feature limiting laws in those years, so no rosters or commerce limiting laws should be able to stand.
There will also be troubling ramifications. There were no serial number required in those years. A case against a felon has already been dismissed regarding removing serial numbers and crossing state lines with a stolen firearm.
Functional features of firearms were not controlled by law in 1791 or 1868… That could open up an entire area of interesting issues.
There were no controls over making your own guns, or the caliber of weapons you could possess.
There were no rules over firing your guns on your own private property, although there were laws against public disturbance and noise nuisances and going to the terror of the people.
Confiscation of property required due process and the decision of a judge or magistrate, there was no concept of a ex-parte “red flag” proceeding.
There were no waiting periods to acquire a firearm, or any number of firearms on the same day. There were no registration lists, or concept of prohibited persons or background check systems.
There were no Federal Firearm Licenses or FFL licensed dealers or manufacturers.
None of our schools were places that prohibited the carry or possession of firearms, and many older students carried rifles to school so that they could go hunting for dinner on their way home.
There was no concept of “gun free” zones – and thus no place where psychopaths could assume that there were “gun free” massacre zones that they could attack.
You can see that this list is long and potentially has very deep implications. Nothing here implies that the criminal use of a firearm is going to be made in any way legal – just the elimination of some of the thousands of infringements that we are living with today.