A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear a gun rights case for the first time since 2010. In the landmark 2010 case, DC v. Heller, The Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms in their homes for the purpose of self-defense, somewhat clearing up the controversy regarding the ‘militia requirement’. Previously, some anti-freedom politicians and activists inappropriately linked the qualifier in the first sentence of the second amendment to the second part, insinuating that only those currently in a ‘well-regulated militia’ could possess a firearm.
The 2019 case was brought by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. and it challenges New York City on the grounds that their prohibition of transporting a firearm to any location other than a shooting range violates the second amendment. On both sides of the debate, anticipation and predictions proliferated once the announcement was made. The NRA and the GOA began to rally their pro-gun troops to donate to the legal team of the plaintiff, NYSRPA. The anti-gun progressive left reacted by fearing the worst – that the conservative Trump Court would use this case as an opportunity to set a horrifying and dangerous precedent; allowing Americans to retain their natural right to carry weapons outside of their homes. Slate published an article titled ‘The Supreme Court Is Preparing to Make Every State’s Gun Laws Look Like Texas’. (let’s not even mention the sin of ‘assuming’ the gender or intentions or plans of anyone that leftists claim to condemn) Here’s why everyone who has opined on this case is either misguided or fear-mongering, in my humble opinion:
Before we even discuss why this court case is not really as earth-shattering as some pundits claim, let’s discuss why the case never should have been filed by the pro-gun NYSRPA in the first place. This case challenges NYC law. Currently, in NYC, nearly zero people other than police (who have zero restrictions on firearms that I know of) and criminals (who don’t obey current laws – hence their name – and who surely would not care about how the Court rules on this technicality) have guns. I lived in NYC for ten years and I don’t recall ever hearing of anyone outside of those two groups owning a firearm, not even a shotgun or a 150-year-old rimfire rifle. Guns are more taboo in NYC than perhaps anywhere else on Earth. I can’t imagine that there were many people in the city who actually owned a firearm who did not already carry. So, who could possibly benefit from a pro-freedom ruling by the SCOTUS in this case?
Before we get to the main event, we should mention that in their zealous haste to fear-monger and complain about the Trump court potentially considering giving us peasants back some of our natural rights/freedoms, the radical, anti-freedom, leftist magazine did not even bother doing any research on gun laws, seemingly. Texas is right in the middle of the pack among the 50 states in regards to gun control. They don’t restrict many types of guns, but Texas does not let anyone carry a handgun without a license! Their fear-mongering might have been more effective if they used Wyoming or New Hampshire as an example of what that ‘horrible, pro-liberty Court’ might turn the whole America into. Wyoming and New Hampshire have effectively no gun laws, and require no permit of any sort to carry any legally possessed firearm, open or concealed.
Speaking of Wyoming and states with no restrictions on firearms, and no permit requirements, we should address the other massive mistake that the Slate writer made. The author wrote that “Right-to-carry laws, like those in Texas, appear to contribute to violent crime and increase homicide rates.” The source that they use for that false and/or misleading statement leads to a leftist university study which cites another leftist university study to back up its claim that ‘Right to Carry’ states (whatever that term means) have higher crime rates than other states. Worth mentioning is that the authors preface the 126-page study with “NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.” The study seems extensive and the only actual data that I noticed seems to conclude that in states where civilians are much more likely to be legally armed, police may be quicker to murder people they encounter. The study also asked some inmates whether the knowledge that law-abiding civilians might be carrying firearms might cause them to fire more quickly, and they answered that it would. The data does not seem to present any evidence that states with more guns or fewer restrictions on concealed carry cause more violent crime. The NBER paper also writes that “The case of the doctor’s use of force is more clearly benign, although the RTC law may have made no difference: a doctor who routinely deals with violent and deranged patients would typically be able to secure a permit to carry a gun even under a may-issue regime.” This is absolutely false. In ‘may issue’ cities like NYC, it would essentially be impossible for any doctor or any non-government official to ever legally carry a firearm unless they bribed the NYPD, as many people have done. The paper’s authors mention that more civilians carrying guns makes the job of police more complicated due to having confusion when approaching violent scenes. They also include ‘increased gun thefts’ in states with more guns. They also embellish how often concealed carriers use their guns when they get angry, implying that everyone who carries shoots every person who ever upsets them. In reality, concealed pistol permit holders are the most law-abiding and peaceful cohort in the whole US; much more peaceful and law-abiding and less violent than police officers! The authors of the paper are totally out of touch and have a clear bias against civilian gun owners, which renders the whole ‘study’ void. Yet another issue with disingenuous leftist propaganda ‘studies’ is that they often conveniently neglect to mention that a few million cases of ‘gun violence’ per year are actually cases of self-defense. Many righteous Americans – especially women – often use firearms to defend themselves from would-be murderers and rapists.
Simply put, this leftist propaganda paper shows pathetically little evidence to support its assertion that “…RTC laws are associated with 13-15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates ten years after adoption”. The study itself further undermines its credibility by proving that it is entirely predicated upon disingenuous and inappropriate questions:“…a) elevated crime by RTC permit holders or by others, which can be induced by the greater belligerence of permit holders that can attend gun carrying or even through counterproductive attempts by permit holders to intervene protectively; b) increased crime by those who acquire the guns of permit holders via loss or theft; c) a change in culture induced by the hyper-vigilance about one’s rights and the need to avenge wrongs that the gun culture can nurture; d) elevated harm as criminals respond to the possibility of armed resistance by increasing their gun-carrying and escalating their level of violence; and e) all of the above factors will either take up police time or increase the risks the police face, thereby impairing the crime-fighting ability of police in ways that can increase crime.” Those questions are ridiculously misguided and/or manipulative. They are the gun-control equivalent to an article proving that people who visit the gym at least 5 times a week generally eat 47% more calories than their counterparts who visit a gym 1-2 times a week (making it seem like visiting the gym is a bad thing). Imagine publishing an article about ‘Americans spending more money than ever before on items they consider to be non-essential since President Trump took office’ (without mentioning that this is a direct result of Americans being more prosperous and having more disposable income since Trump took office).
The propagandists also fail to mention that the safest states in the nation (as per FBI crime statistics for violent crime, and data for property crime, and homicide) every year are states with zero gun laws. And the cities and states with the most serious/violent crime generally have the strictest gun control. This list (based on FBI crime statistics) proves that the three safest states in the US all have no restrictions on guns (though Vermont passed some gun control laws after this list was compiled). Among the most dangerous areas in the US are Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and the Bronx (where my African-American, Bronx-born partner at work once warned me that “n***** here would shoot you in broad daylight”). What do those cities have in common? The strictest gun laws in the US. And thoroughly Democratic leadership, of course.
Regardless of the statistics and history of gun control (read: government control of all weapons), which enabled the most horrible genocides in our history, (Holocaust, Communist Russia, Communist China, etc.) the right to own real property is a natural human right, as is the right to self-defense. Even if states with gun control were safe and states with no gun laws were dangerous, I would still not budge in my support for freedom, the right to property, and the right to defend oneself.
Now, let’s get back to the current Supreme Court case: NYSRPA v NYC. Even if the ‘evil bigots’ on the court rule that NYC is violating the 2nd amendment by forbidding people from carrying firearms (which it clearly is), NYC would not change its laws.
How could I say that with certainty?
Because New York City, like many leftist cities and states, seems to violate federal laws on a regular basis.
New York City violates and ignores federal immigration law. Mayor Deblasio proudly told a CNN reporter that even if an illegal alien were caught driving while drunk, he would not be deported or punished and federal agents would be forbidden from coming near the case. New York has also been progressively decriminalizing cannabis, despite the substance remaining illegal – as illegal as heroin and peyote – according to the federal government. Anyone who knows politics knows that NYC politicians hate guns much more than they like cannabis. If they are willing to defy the US government when it comes to cannabis, they would surely not loosen restrictions on guns if the federal government ruled that they should.
As usual, the radical, anti-freedom left remains disingenuous in their activism, and the pro-freedom right misses the boat in the battle entirely. If Gun Owners of America were wise, they would not spend a penny or a minute on battles in NYC (or the federal government, for that matter). The only battle that will impact freedom in a practical application is the battle to keep the last few states free from anti-gun, anti-freedom statists.
UPDATE: On June 23, 2022, the SCOTUS ruled that New York’s criminalization of firearms and refusal to grant permits to people unless they demonstrate a sufficient ‘need’ to carry a firearm for protection (as determined by NY politicians) is unconstitutional. Of course, NY’s politicians, cops, and courts will ignore this ruling just as they have always ignored the US Constitution. This ruling changes nothing.
UPDATE: On July 2nd, 2022, Reuters reported that NY Dictator, Kathy Hochul called a special legislative in response to the SCOTUS ruling that the NY prohibition on carrying guns was unconstitutional. As I predicted over three years ago, the tyrannical politicians in progressive states 100% defy the laws and rulings that do not support their ideology, rendering federal laws and SCOTUS rulings 100% meaningless. Now that the highest court ruled that they cannot make it impossible for people to obtain permits, they simply shifted to another one of the many methods of gun control: prohibiting firearms in ‘sensitive places’. The new law makes it a felony to a
As reported by Reuters, “the law passed on Friday makes it a felony crime to carry a gun into a new list of sensitive places, including: government buildings, medical facilities, places of worship, libraries, playgrounds, parks, zoos, schools, colleges, summer camps, addiction-support centers, homeless shelters, nursing homes, public transit including the New York City subway, places where alcohol or marijuana is consumed, museums, theaters, stadiums and other venues, polling places and Times Square.”
So, even if New York politicians do obey the SCOTUS ruling and begin issuing permits to qualified residents who apply for one (which I am not convinced they will do, because they know that the SCOTUS cannot punish them for disobeying their order and the federal DOJ has already viciously condemned the SCOTUS ruling and implied that they would sooner go to war against the SCOTUS than enforce the new ruling), the new permit-holders cannot possess a firearm in any actual place outside of their home.
As I have been saying for years, individuals in socialist authoritarian states who wish to have more liberty should NOT rely on the courts or any other institution to protect or restore their rights. They have one viable option: Move to New Hampshire and help the state become more free and independent from DC politicians.