The Supreme Court Hammers Another Nail in the Anti-Gun Coffin

Today the Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that it is Constitutional for an individual to carry a gun outside the home for personal protection. This ruling only affects nine states that have "MAY" issue laws, instead of "SHALL" issue laws - California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. "May" means you must show cause to procure a license to carry, usually something along the lines of immediate danger. "Shall" means (for all practical purposes) that other than a clean background check, the state must license you.

This 6-3 decision (six Constitutional Justices vs three Left-wing Activist Justices) exposes the Left's inability to make rulings based on the application of the Constitution vs an activist ruling based solely on emotions, feelings, and a progressive agenda. Breyer, Kagen, and Sotomayor have again revealed their dislike for the constrictions the Constitution places on government overreach against an individual's rights.

This is why the 2016 election between Trump and Clinton was so important. The Supreme Court was my only concern. Had Clinton won, the court right now would stand 7-2 in favor of extremist activist Jurors whose sole intent is to tear down the Constitution, rebuilding this country into a socialist stronghold instead of now having Constitutional Originalists on the panel to protect your civil liberties.

The complete ruling for NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. can be read HERE  It's 135 pages long, a fairly easy read - or just skim the context - but is an obvious testament to those who rule with the Founders original intent held close.

Below are excerpts from Justice Alito's concurring opinion of the ruling and his scalding (rebuttal) of Justice Bryer's dissent to the ruling.

Starting on page 70, Justice Alito states...

"In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5.

"Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. 

"What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

"The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question [of] whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? 

"The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question[of] whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense."

Alito does not stop there, stating...

"According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year. Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 5. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report commissioned by former President Barack Obama reviewed the literature surrounding firearms use and noted that “[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns . . . have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”"

And...

"The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City."

Justice Breyer and his fellow radical, extremist Progressive Left-wing cohorts are a testament to activist Jurists whose decisions can only be supported by twisting and torturing the meaning of the Constitution.  

Thank you to the Supreme Court Justices who hold down the Constitutional fort.

Can you imagine what this country would look like right now - and I mean right freaking now - had Clinton won and the Left took over the Supreme Court?  Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett would be replaced by Merrick Garland - now the head of the disgrace known as the Department of Justice and two other radical extremists in their stead.  

If you didn't just feel a shiver go down your spine, you need to inform yourself.  

Why?  Because if you were informed, you would now understand why the Left has been screaming for a Progressive Congress to pack the Supreme Court. It's why Congressional members like Pelosi and Schumer have attempted to intimidate and threaten the Constitutional Originalists on the court... and have done it with impunity. Its why private citizens are applauded and praised for protesting outside Constitutional Originalist Justice's homes in a show of intimidation, while parents attending school council meetings and voicing dissent about Critical Racism Training being taught to their children are marked as "domestic terrorists" by the aforementioned Merrick Garland of the DoJ. 

Our guard must never let down.  We have two more years of Biden / Harris before we can take back the Presidency.  We must stand strong.  In ten years Justices Alito and Thomas will be in their 80s and Justice Sotomayor, a diabetic, will be in her late 70s and we will have another round of new Justices to be voted in.  And we want them to be Constitutional Originalists.

This fight for our Country never ends.