America has been bequeathed with an unparalleled heritage of freedom like no country on the planet. Not everyone seems to understand the need to guard this heritage with jealous attention, especially those who are well-educated in the field of law and ought to know better.

University of Michigan Law School Professor Barbara McQuade, who has served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, penned an opinion column at MSNBC titled, “America’s gun infatuation is a threat. The Supreme Court could make it worse.” It starts out with this sentence:

America’s infatuation with guns is a national security threat. And it appears poised to get even worse.

This claim reveals a disdain not just for the notion of gun ownership, but also for Americans’ insistence on not relinquishing that freedom. America’s Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment because it ensures national security, not because it’s a national security threat.

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argued the law violates the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms by permitting the state to issue licenses only to those who can show a particularized need. […] First, states have a strong interest in imposing reasonable restrictions on who can carry a concealed weapon and under what circumstances […]

New York’s asinine law means only rich and connected people like former President Donald Trump, or those willing to bribe government apparatchiks, are considered “reasonable” enough to get a carry permit. Ordinary people’s lives are treated as less worthy than those of upper-caste elites; this is especially true for black and hispanic New Yorkers, who Michael Bloomberg’s racist stop-and-frisk policies were explicitly aimed at.

Make no mistake – New York’s law is an insult to the Declaration of Independence’s words that “All men are created equal.”

Prof. McQuade uses scare tactics throughout her article:

The court could go even further and hold that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms without restriction.

This is patently false; the court is not talking about the right to bear arms without restriction. Oral arguments included discussion on time, place, and manner restrictions.

Concealed carry of firearms allows for coordinated and deadly attack-planning because they enable the element of surprise. 

First, those planning a coordinated, deadly attack are not going to apply for a Carry Permit, let alone acquire firearms legally. Second, restrictions on firearms don’t deter smuggling from overseas; that’s what happened in Paris in 2015 and Mumbai in 2008. Third, concealed carry has an important upside: it allows for effective defense because the element of surprise goes both ways.

For this reason, handguns are the weapon of choice in most mass shootings. In 81 percent of mass shootings in the United States over the past 12 years, at least one handgun was used, according to an Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund analysis. In 60 percent of mass shootings, only a handgun was used.

Everytown Law has claimed in the past that the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters; Everytown Research, on the other hand, says that handguns are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings.

During Wednesday’s oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about concealed weapons at universities,

Campus Carry is legal in 11 states, with more on the way. The fear mongering that we see every time a new state allows campus carry has invariably fallen flat.

Now imagine a future in which the Supreme Court has permitted that fan to pull out his assault pistol in a stadium filled with thousands of fans.

A football stadium where everyone goes through security screening prior to entry may well meet the court’s sensitive places criteria. But Prof. McQuade’s “assault pistol” verbal concoction is something to behold.

What exactly is an “assault pistol”?

Second, striking down New York’s licensing requirement would permit terrorists to further exploit our already lax gun laws.

What other freedoms do “national security officials” like McQuade want us to cede because there are some who abuse them? The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? Free speech because there are some who incite violence? Why not do away with the Fourth Amendment so terrorists can’t secretly communicate and plan attacks? Why not override the First Amendment to create a new class of “assault religions” and ban Islam?

Third, the increase in domestic terrorism and political violence in our country makes restrictions on concealed weapons more vital than ever. […] It appears that insurrectionists largely left their guns at home.

What sort of “insurrectionist” obeys the law and leaves his or her guns at home? McQuade wants to have her assault cake and eat it too.

Constitutional rights may be restricted when states can show that the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental purpose.

New York’s restriction is not narrowly tailored. The state’s sincerity in pursuing its purported compelling purpose of public safety is laughable if you look at how New York has been coddling violent criminals lately.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the presumption of liberty that Americans are born with, and ignores the churlish, screaming scolds in the press.