U.S.A.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013-(AmmoLand.com)-<\/a>\u00a0A lengthy\u00a0CBS News<\/a>\u00a0report on the impact of last summer\u2019s Supreme Court ruling in\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em>\u00a0indicates lingering angst among gun control proponents now faced with the daunting challenge of justifying restrictive gun laws when they may not be \u201cconsistent with the nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n In the first paragraph, CBS acknowledges, \u201cthe new legal test laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority opinion has reshaped the legal landscape for firearms laws and led to uncertainty over whether measures that aim to curb gun violence can survive legal scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n The recent litigation history of just one organization\u2014the Second Amendment Foundation\u2014adequately confirms the CBS statement. In just the past several days:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n The CBS report accurately explains the full impact of the high court\u2019s June 2022 ruling, authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, noting, \u201cthe government is required to show that the measure is consistent with the nation\u2019s historical tradition of gun regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n In his\u00a0majority opinion<\/a>, Thomas wrote, \u201cWe hold that when the Second Amendment\u2019s plain text covers an individual\u2019s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n But right at the end of his 63-page dissertation, which CBS suggests has left anti-gun politicians and their gun prohibitionist supporters reeling, Thomas made another observation that should be required reading for lawmakers from Albany, N.Y. to Sacramento, Calif.<\/p>\n \u201cThe constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not \u2018a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.\u2019 We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant\u2019s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What CBS seems to believe is a significant problem is viewed by grassroots gun rights activists as the battle line of a fight that has been a long time coming. The scramble by anti-gun administrations and legislatures in New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Washington\u2014and elsewhere\u2014to craft new laws in an effort to get around the Bruen doctrine has only ignited new legal challenges.<\/p>\n \u201cBut the new requirements,\u201d CBS notes, \u201chave been swiftly met with a flood of lawsuits from gun rights organizations and firearms owners who argue they do not pass constitutional muster under the Supreme Court\u2019s\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision. And federal judges navigating the changed legal landscape have cited the June ruling in their own decisions, many blocking enforcement of the gun laws.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
![\"U](\"https:\/\/www.ammoland.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/U-S-Supreme-Court-Clarence-Thomas-450x379.jpg\")
Still, when Joe Biden made his State of the Union address, he\u00a0renewed his demand<\/a>\u00a0for Congress to ban so-called \u201cassault weapons.\u201d And in typical Biden fashion, he couldn\u2019t even do that properly.<\/h3>\n