{"id":93005,"date":"2023-05-20T09:16:56","date_gmt":"2023-05-20T14:16:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=93005"},"modified":"2023-05-20T09:16:56","modified_gmt":"2023-05-20T14:16:56","slug":"93005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=93005","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

FULL IMPACT<\/a>
\nALMOST 11 MONTHS AFTER BRUEN, COURTS LAY DOWN LAW<\/p>\n

It\u2019s been almost 11 months since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a decision authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, which could be the most important Second Amendment victory in recent memory.<\/p>\n

Bruen builds nicely on the groundwork already put down by the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision. Heller established decisively that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. McDonald affirmed that local governments cannot outright ban possession of firearms and more importantly, incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. Henceforth, whether a state has a right to bear arms provision in its state constitution, all states must comply with the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

Then, 12 years after McDonald, along comes Bruen, which declared New York State\u2019s restrictive concealed carry law \u2014 designed more to prevent lawful carry than license and allow it \u2014 unconstitutional. And it has a critical section, which did away with what amounted to an invention by the lower federal courts to protect restrictive gun control laws by establishing \u201cmeans-end\u201d scrutiny in addition to the historical meaning and perspective.<\/p>\n

In Thomas\u2019 words, \u201cIn Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a \u201ctwo-step\u201d framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday, we decline to adopt that two-part approach,\u201d Thomas continued. \u201cIn keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment\u2019s plain text covers an individual\u2019s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A few paragraphs later, the Justice added, \u201cDespite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.\u201d<\/p>\n

Naturally, the gun prohibition crowd has been in hysterical withdrawal ever since, with many anti-gunners clinging to the myth that the high court was wrong, and that the amendment clearly applies only to a state\u2019s \u201cright\u201d to maintain a militia. It is a thoroughly discredited position, but people opposed to legal gun ownership are a stubborn lot.<\/p>\n

Minnesota Ruling<\/span>
\nThe Bruen ruling came down on June 23, 2022. About two months ago, in a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case known as Worth v. Harrington, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez \u2014 relying on the Bruen decision \u2014 struck down a state law restricting handgun carry permits to citizens over age 21.<\/p>\n

Judge Menendez infuriated the gun ban bunch, writing, \u201cIn the decade of litigation following Heller, Courts of Appeals around the country adopted a variety of balancing tests which weighed a government\u2019s interest in a particular gun control measure against the extent and nature of that law\u2019s infringement of Second Amendment rights \u2026 Indeed, every Circuit Court to address the issue prior to Bruen gave weight in the analysis to the societal goals served by the regulation at issue \u2026 But Bruen rejected any \u2018two-step,\u2019 \u2018means-end scrutiny\u2019 entirely. Instead, the Court adopted the following test for evaluating whether a government regulation of firearms is permissible:<\/p>\n

\u201c[W]e 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. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual\u2019s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment\u2019s \u201cunqualified command.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Judge Menendez lowered the proverbial boom by stating, \u201cThe Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass\u2019n v. Bruen \u2026 compels the conclusion that Minnesota\u2019s permitting age restriction is unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Long story short: Constitutional rights apply to young adults, same as they apply to older citizens.<\/p>\n

Garden State Victory<\/span>
\nBack in January, New Jersey\u2019s restrictive gun control law prohibiting the carrying of handguns in certain \u201csensitive places\u201d earned a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Court Judge Ren\u00e9e Marie Bumb in another SAF case, known as Koons v. Reynolds.This one went over with gun banners like a dog drinking from the punchbowl. Judge Bumb\u2019s 60-page ruling was full of bad news for the anti-gun Legislature in Trenton.<\/p>\n

Among her observations, she wrote, \u201cThe Bruen Court was clear in its instruction to this Court when undertaking a constitutional analysis of a state\u2019s gun control legislation. This Court must rely on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text rather than make empirical judgments about the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions. As the Court explained, \u201c[i]f the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of \u2018intermediate scrutiny\u2019 often defer to the determinations of legislatures.\u201d<\/p>\n

And there was more: \u201cAgain, Defendants must be able to rebut the presumption that the challenged conduct is constitutionally protected by \u2018demonstrat[ing] that the regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u2019 To reiterate, Defendants \u2018may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the [Defendants] must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

No Wiggle Room<\/span>
\nDepending upon the specific court and judge(s), the Bruen ruling established a new guideline for the lower courts which hopefully put an end to rulings that always seemed tilted in favor of the gun control laws being challenged.<\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t leave much wiggle room for the individual rights deniers, and it\u2019s a cinch they don\u2019t like it. Get out the crying towels.<\/p>\n

For generations, gun control proponents have been ratcheting down on the right to keep and bear arms, but over the course of the past 14 years, from June 2008 to June 2022, the sea has changed dramatically. The gun prohibition lobby, with its billionaire backers, will keep trying to dance around the high court\u2019s affirmative rulings. Just how long the Supreme Court will let them get away with it remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

Death in the Cemetery<\/span>
\nWe\u2019ve heard of ironic shootings over the years, but one that happened two months ago in Ambler, Penn. was downright strange, involving a fellow who was shot dead in \u2014 of all places \u2014 a cemetery, and authorities say it was self-defense.<\/p>\n

According to NBC News in Philadelphia, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele decided not to charge a man identified as Arian Davis, 33, of Philadelphia in the shooting death of 29-year-old Daniel Hawkins, also from Philly.<\/p>\n

Steele determined that Davis fired in self-defense when he apparently was attacked by Hawkins, who reportedly \u201cshowed up alone at a birthday party at the grave of Tyrek Fairel \u2014 who was killed in a Norristown shooting in 2013 \u2014 in a stolen vehicle, armed with a handgun that had been illegally modified into a fully automatic weapon.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the report, Hawkins apparently spotted Davis sitting in a car with a friend. Hawkins approached the vehicle and opened fire with the altered pistol. Bad luck for Hawkins because Davis was legally armed, and he fired back. He had been injured in the hand, leg and jaw.<\/p>\n

So, let\u2019s recap. A guy shows up at a birthday party, in a cemetery, in a stolen car with an illegally altered gun, only to be shot dead by somebody he was apparently trying to kill. I can hardly wait to see the movie.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FULL IMPACT ALMOST 11 MONTHS AFTER BRUEN, COURTS LAY DOWN LAW It\u2019s been almost 11 months since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a decision authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, which could be the most important Second Amendment victory in recent … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=93005"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93005\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":93006,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93005\/revisions\/93006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=93005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=93005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=93005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}