Supreme Court Case Could Have Serious Ramifications

Supreme Court Case Could Have Serious Ramifications
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear a case involving New York’s “may issue” law has got some folks in a tizzy. After all, President Donald Trump nominated three justices to the Court, including a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, taking a 5-4 Court and making it 6-3.

As a result, we all know good and well that whatever decision is reached is likely to be one that we pro-gun folks are going to at least be somewhat happy with.

We also know that anti-gunners are going to hate it.

However, just what kind of ramifications from that decision are we talking about? Well, there are a few.

 Striking down New York’s restrictions would endanger similar laws in seven other states including California, the most populous one. But the Supreme Court potentially could go further by fashioning a test for lower courts to assess the legality of gun control measures such as whether any analogous regulation existed during the country’s early history.

Gun control advocates have said this could endanger measures that states already have implemented and many lower courts have upheld including expanded criminal background checks for gun buyers and “red flag” laws targeting the firearms of people deemed dangerous by the courts.

Blocher said it is unlikely that most present-day gun laws would be struck down even under such a test because “the tradition of gun regulation in the United States is rich.”

Well, it kind of is.

I mean, that tradition of gun control dates all the way back to the days when racist governments wanted to make good and damn well sure that black people couldn’t get guns because they didn’t want their Klan-member supporters to get shot by people in self-defense. That tradition is awfully rich.

However, they’re likely right. There’s not much chance that the Court will decide to issue a ruling so broad that it essentially wipes out gun control across the nation.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if the ruling boiled down to, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ did you people not get?” but that’s not particularly likely. More than that, we all know it.

However, I think the minimum we’ll see is a ruling that knocks out the requirement that one must justify wanting a permit, hopefully with a side of destroying requirements for “good moral character” that originated as a way to justify denying permits to Black gun owners back in the day.

More likely, though, we’ll see the end of “may issue” permitting. That’s going to impact not just New York, but also states like Hawaii and New Jersey, among others.

Imagine, if you will, every state having to issue permits to anyone who doesn’t have a criminal record. Law-abiding citizens who have long been denied their constitutionally protected right to bear arms will suddenly be one step closer to actual freedom. It would be a huge day, to say the last.

There’s a reason why so many anti-gunners are nervous right now. After all, if this happens and states start having to issue permits to anyone who wants them and isn’t a criminal, you’ll start to see just how many lies that group has peddled through the years when they claimed more guns mean more crime.