A nationally-syndicated editorial attempted to persuade readers on the merits of New York’s problematic “may issue” handgun permit law and why the U.S. Supreme Court should leave it intact. They presented a stronger argument for why the law should not be repealed. The antigun argument does not help gun rights, as it turns out.
RELATED STORY
Media Expose Misinformation, Inadvertently Busts their Own MSR Myth
Antigun Argument Helps Gun Rights
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Their decision is likely to be made at the end of this term. Early reviews indicate that the Supreme Court justices were skeptical about the law. This could indicate that NYSRPA may be anticipating a significant Second Amendment victory.
Time on Your Side
The Editorial Board of Bloomberg News stated that they have better knowledge about community safety, self defense, and why law-abiding Americans, particularly New Yorkers, should have the right to possess firearms outside their home. They misrepresented the Supreme Court’s role and jurisprudence when arguing for New York’s “may-issue” permit law. They claimed that time and age are more important than Constitutionality.
The editors stated that “a recent hearing gave the impression that the Supreme Court…is inclined [to strike down] a gun law that has been in place for more than 100 year,” “That would be an awful error …”,” they stated.
When it comes to laws that restrict fundamental American rights, time is not the legal measurement stick. Constitutionally, the “time” that matters is the history and tradition of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Bloomberg is not in the time. There is a stronger argument to strike New York’s “may-issue” law, which has been in effect for nearly 415 years. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, spoke out about the flaws in New York’s law.
Turley explained that gun rights are one of the few constitutional rights that has been so extensively debated in this country. “Indeed,” Turley explained, “Indeed, before other Englishmen were granted a written warranty of the right to bear arm, colonists in Virginia were given such a written assurance by the Crown in 1607.
It was established over 400 years ago that Americans have the right to defend themselves. These rights were enumerated by the Founding Fathers, including the Second Amendment. They are “unalienable” rights that have been “endowed” by their Creator. Individuals also have protection under the U.S. Constitution.
Arbitrators for Self-Defense
New York is one eight states that may impose restrictions on concealed carry permit applicants. When deciding whether law-abiding New Yorkers have a “proper reason” to bear arms, bureaucrats are the arbiters. This system is flawed. Americans don’t need to look back 400 or 100 years to see the problems. For example, no one would ever need to show unelected bureaucrats “proper cause” in order to exercise First Amendment rights.
Santa Clara County’s District Attorney indicted four people last year for bribery in connection with the trading of handgun permits for iPads. Federal prosecutors in New York discovered a pay-to play scheme within the New York Police Department’s “may issue” licensing division. Four officers were arrested after they discovered that the scheme involved workers receiving thousands of dollars to rubber stamp carry permits.
The Founding Fathers recognized that rights, particularly those relating to firearms, need protection and guarantees to protect them from corrupt government officials. The Supreme Court challenge by NYSRPA to New York’s “may-issue” law is a prime example, regardless how long the state law was in effect.
Recognize the Problem
Bloomberg’s editorial was published in many news outlets, including The Washington Post, The Orlando Sentinel and the Quad City Times. The editors acknowledge the crime increase. They recognize that criminals, even those in New York City, illegally possess firearms. This makes “crowded city streets, subways, and buses less secure.” It is absurd to suggest that law-abiding citizens need to show “proper cause” in order to protect themselves against vicious criminals.
Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon’s leniency toward criminals is evident in ample evidence. This includes the announcement of the release of a convicted killer who had served only a fraction of his 50-year sentence. In a press release, the LAPD stated that they could not adequately protect victims of follow-up robberies and that victims should cooperate and comply.
New York City’s outgoing mayor and police commissioner can’t keep residents safe. They only blame each other while crime rises. Eric Adams, the new mayor of New York City, ran on a message for community safety. It would mean that New York’s “may-issue” law would be repealed, putting law-abiding New Yorkers at greater risk.
In the past eleven months, 16.7 millions Americans have passed a National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICS verification to purchase a firearm. This is the second-highest year ever recorded, surpassing only last year’s record of 21 million. Their message to bureaucrats across the country is simple. They will do anything to ensure public safety. They can be assured by the Supreme Court.
Original story posted on NSSF.org
Personal Defense World’s first article, The Post Nationally Syndicated Antigun Argument Only Aids Gun Rights Case, appeared first on Personal Defense World.
