Posted on 03/18/2024 5:42:25 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Federal courts in blue states seem to be upholding the majority of gun control laws, even after landmark Supreme Court decisions upholding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
We recently posted about the New York Second Amendment case challenging New York’s concealed carry permit law that requires that a permit applicant prove to a local official that he or she is of “good moral character.” Not only is this an absurd requirement (how exactly are you supposed to prove that you have “good moral character”), but even after doing so, said local official then has complete discretion on whether to approve the applicant’s permit request . . . or not. The challengers in the case just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case after the Second Circuit approved the “good moral character” requirement:
From our report: Second Circuit’s Partial Upholding of New York’s Gun Carry Law Appealed to SCOTUS:
The key part of the Petition [asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case] is its discussion of the New York law’s requirement that New Yorkers prove that they have “good moral character” before obtaining a concealed carry permit:
[T]his case would allow this Court the opportunity to clarify that government may not selectively disarm law-abiding members of “the people” whenever licensing officials feel they are of poor character, potentially dangerous, or otherwise unworthy of enjoying the natural right to self-defense with which they were endowed by their Creator….
In Bruen, this Court rejected New York’s requirement that, to be authorized to bear arms in public, citizens first must demonstrate “proper cause” — defined as “a special need for self-protection.” Here, the panel sanctioned New York’s stand-in requirement that citizens convince licensing officials of their “good moral character” prior to licensure. As the district court explained, New York simply “replaced” proper cause with good moral character, “while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers….”
New York’s “good moral character” standard is…a prohibited “suitability” determination and, as the district court noted, is merely a surrogate for the “proper cause” standard that was struck down in Bruen…Indeed, under the CCIA, New York officials decide whether a person “ha[s] the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon….”
It is quite difficult to understand Bruen’s criticism of “suitability” not to include “good moral character.” And it is even more difficult to believe that this Court would approve the discretionary power to deny carry licenses to “all Americans” unless they first “convince a ‘licensing officer’” of their general morality.
[bold added; italics in original]
In doing some research to see if other cases exist that are working their way through the courts, I was surprised to find out that there are — a lot of them.
Rhode Island Magazine Limit Law
For example, as reported in the Second Amendment advocacy website The Reload, a Federal Appeals Court recently upheld a Rhode Island ammo magazine ban:
Rhode Island’s ban on possessing ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday [March 8, 2024].
SNIP
Illinois “Assault Weapon” Ban and Magazine Limit Law
SNIP
Summary
As you can see, numerous cases are either at the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review, or are likely to end up there.
Whether the Court grants review in any of these cases might individually be a longshot, but sooner or later the Court will have to take notice of the sheer volume of these cases and provide further guidance.
We will keep you updated.
So many gun laws. So many boating accidents. The Supreme Court could do much to make canoe trips safer.
Imagine telling people they need to have two references before they can vote.
I guess Massachusetts politicians didn't get the hint when a gun law that the state's Supreme Court had upheld as being constitutional was struck down by SCOTUS...9-0 ("Caetano v Massachusetts"). In the decision SCOTUS said that the state Supreme Court's reasoning in their decision was "frivolous".
I guess Rat Party hacks don't mind being called "frivolous" by SCOTUS.
Imagine someone requiring a psychiatrist's letter before he can attend a Methodist Church or before he can express support for...or opposition to...The Big Guy on Facebook..
Many of these cases are to bring blue states back in line, but many are also challenging older restrictions since we have a more pro-2nd Amendment SCOTUS.
Of course, a change in court composition will result in all these rulings to be over-turned.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
With a plurality of States with Constitutional Carry, it should be time for the Court to just Invalidate ALL State Gun Control laws with regards to carrying a firearm.
28 or 29 states with Constitutional Carry is a clear majority, not a plurality.
Just saw a YTube video on a new Georgia law.
It says that if a business “owner” says its property is gun free, the same owner assumes all liability for any harm (physical, theft, etc) that occurs to a concealed carry person while on their property.
Nice twist. Make virtue signaling pay.
This has been proposed a few places and times.
If you live in New York and are of good moral character —
Quick! Get out, before they make up a new law to charge you with violating!
Looks like Colorado wants to sign up for a SCOTUS smack down as well.
In New Jersey you must “prove a need” to obtain a carry permit. And unless you’re “connected”, the proof is insufficient.
What do they fail to understand about the phrase “shall not be infringed”?
Every last one a violation of the Second Amendment, along with violating numerous State constitutions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.