Blue states prepare new gun control laws to survive Supreme Court challenges

Washington Examiner ^ | December 13, 2022 | Sarah Westwood

[Twotone]

Blue states are pursuing new gun control measures in the wake of a Supreme Court decision this year that upended the way courts may look at gun laws in the future.

In New Jersey, lawmakers in the state are advancing a bill that would severely restrict where lawful gun owners could carry their firearms with a permit that, under the new law, would cost significantly more money to obtain.

In Illinois, lawmakers on Monday debated a proposal that would ban assault-style weapons, outlaw higher capacity magazines, and raise the minimum age for gun ownership from 18 to 21 years old.

And in Oregon, state officials are fighting to implement a measure approved last month by voters that would place additional requirements on residents looking to purchase a gun.

The changes come as states adjust to new limits on gun restrictions in the aftermath of the June Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

A majority of justices ruled in the Bruen case that New York’s concealed carry permitting system was unconstitutional because it forced applicants to demonstrate that they had “proper cause” — beyond just a desire to carry their legally owned firearms — to deserve a permit.

Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he knew of “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

[antidemoncrat]

Blue states:

Defund police

Seize law abiding citizens guns ... not criminals or gangbangers or illegal aliens’ guns

Establish their long desired perfect Socialist State

Voters: Grumble but give into to them

[circlecity]

Since these restrictions have no historical basis they would not survive a Bruen challenge.

[ronnie raygun]

While thugs they refuse to incarcerate are back on the streets killing people with GUNS. Their THREAT IS US AND OUR GUNS

[asinclair]

Hey about about the implied "equal rights" provision in the Constitution? As in "any gun control law shall apply EQUALLY to all nonmilitary CIVILIANS and CIVILIAN ORGANIZATIONS?

Most custard-head liberals would go along with that until they hear the howls from law enforcement and Brink's truck security guards.

[Sirius Lee]

If you're too young to won a gun then you're too young to vote, too young to be drafted, too young for consensual sex, too young to sign contracts, too young for jury duty, too young to marry, too young to pick a new "gender" and get surgical genital mutilation.

You'e either of majority age and have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult rights, or you don't.

[dpetty121263]

These Blue State folks deserve what they get, I know there are some good folks but they need to reconsider staying.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Sorry ahos. We’ll do the same thing to SCOTUS anti-Second Amendment decisions that you maggots did to the SCOTUS anti-baby killing decision. You Flucks aren’t going to win you anti-Bill of Rights battle.

[Twotone]

You have to wonder why they keep trying to pass legislation that is obviously going to be struck down based on what the Supreme Court has done with the last few cases. I think it’s just lawfare - making us waste time & money defending the 2nd. And it keeps us from effectively stopping all the OTHER things the leftists are doing to destroy this country.

[OldGoatCPO]

These legislators are either fools or they are pandering to fools. Well, maybe both. NY has been the gift that keeps on giving. Every time they trot out new restrictions they strengthen previous pro-2d Amendment rulings. As you pointed out many of these laws will not survive court challenges. You may get some low level judge or the 9th circus to say they are constitutional, but further up the judicial food chain they get shot down. (Pun intended)

You want to stop this craziness, start committing people who are dangerous to society. That's were the courts should be engaged. I had a family member who was a danger to society and themselves. We tried to have the individual forced into treatment. The best we could do was 72 hours after which they could not involuntarily hold the person no matter if they were a threat to society and themselves. It did not end well.

[hanamizu]

Blue states are pursuing new gun control measures... as states adjust to new limits on gun restrictions in the aftermath of the June Supreme Court decision

---

So blue states are reacting to limits on gun restrictions by passing more gun restrictions. Makes sense to me.
/s

[KTM rider]

never thought I would think it but with this mega surge in illegal aliens from all over the world, gun confiscation might not be a bad idea in the long run after all, since the bulk of the US population will be foreign criminals with no incentive to assimilate or obey laws [/sarcasm]

[libertylover]

There’s hardly any restriction that could be made and still really be Constitutional. “... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

[Gay State Conservative]

Seems to me that SCOTUS could see these laws as a violation of 2A rights just as they did (unanimously) in Caetano v Massachusetts.

[Fireone]

“restrict where lawful gun owners could carry their firearms”

Infringe: 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Since these restrictions have no historical basis they would not survive a Bruen challenge."

So far, they are losing badly. I recommend the YouTube channel "Guns and Gadgets" which follows these things closely.

[zeugma]

Since these restrictions have no historical basis they would not survive a Bruen challenge.

Indeed. In a sane world, that would be obvious. Bruen was brilliantly worded.