Biden Administration Asks the U.S. Supreme Court to Judicially Nullify the Right to Bear Arms

Here’s the content of the article linked below.

On September 21, the Biden Administration filed an amicus brief in the pending U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, supporting New York’s draconian and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear firearms in public for self-defense.

This NRA-supported challenge to New York’s “may-issue” licensing scheme for public handgun carry is the first Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law to reach the high court since 2010.

New York’s law presumptively denies the right to bear arms for self-defense unless a license applicant can demonstrate a special need for self-protection that distinguishes the person from the general population.

In practice, this means the rich and well-connected can get unrestricted carry licenses but ordinary people cannot, even if they actually face a greater risk of being violently victimized while going about their daily lives in public. The law effectively nullifies for most New Yorkers what the Supreme Court has already characterized as “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

New York’s “may-issue” scheme in fact gives authorities so much discretion that it has fostered a culture of corruption, particularly within the Licensing Division of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). There have been repeated scandals involving the NYPD Licensing Division’s application process, with “facilitators” offering gifts and bribes to licensing personnel to approve or expedite their clients’ applications. In some cases, this has resulted in the issuance of carry licenses to applicants with otherwise disqualifying criminal histories and in criminal convictions for NYPD officers. In other locales, licenses are issued by elected sheriffs, with preference given to political donors and supporters.

The entire point of the New York scheme is not simply or primarily to screen out applicants who fail to meet objective standards of responsible and law-abiding behavior. It is to give authorities complete control over who gets to exercise the right and who does not. This, of course, is wholly incompatible with the idea of a fundamental right, which exists, as the Supreme Court said in the Second Amendment context, “to take certain policy choices off the table.” If the starting point for a carry licensing scheme is presumptive denial, then there is no right at all, only a privilege administered to the favored few.

And this is absolutely fine for the Biden Administration, at least when it comes to the Second Amendment.

After all, as we’ve reported, Biden’s own son Hunter has the manifest privilege of violating with impunity various federal gun control laws the government brief insists are so necessary to protect public safety. This is in addition to his apparent immunity to other laws against things like drug possession and distribution, prostitution, and the list continues.

The government’s brief, filed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice, also gives complete vindication to the NRA’s opposition to now Attorney General Merrick Garland’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, when he was a federal appellate judge. Anti-gun pundits had mocked that opposition at the time, falsely claiming there was no legal basis for it, even though Garland had voted to rehear a case that had ruled an outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment. Yet, as we had explained, the only plausible reason to support such a “do-over” was that the court had come to the wrong conclusion. Why repeat something already done correctly?

Now, as AG, Garland is advocating that the U.S. Supreme Court effectively remove the right to “bear arms” from the U.S. Constitution. The administration’s brief additionally argues for what it calls a “reasonable regulation” standard for other types of gun control and for its implementation via “intermediate scrutiny.” Activist and anti-gun courts have used this standard to uphold not just may-issue licensing schemes but sweeping bans on some of America’s most popular types of firearms and magazines.

Fortunately, the United States Senate blocked Garland’s Supreme Court appointment in 2016. Thus, while his noxious view of the Second Amendment will still be put forth before the court, he at least won’t have the opportunity to cast a vote against the right to bear arms himself, as he undoubtedly would have.

While no outcome at the Supreme Court is ever guaranteed, Second Amendment advocates should if anything be in an even stronger position this time around than during the court’s prior visitations of the Second Amendment in 2008 and 2010.

And Merrick Garland --Barack Obama’s handpicked choice to replace the legendary Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Helle r – will have to watch from the sidelines as just another lawyer.

@OldDude49 I added that the above was the content of the article. Hope you don’t mind. ~Moderators

5 Likes

:rage::rage::rage::rage::rage::rage::rage:
Shall not be infringed.
Looks like Americans need to reintroduce tarring and feathering.

6 Likes

It was only a matter of time before they burned the United States Constitution. I guess it’s time for a new Declaration of Independence!
Isn’t there a clause or an amendment that nullifies his voice?
Not when your KING! It’s kinda funny, all those that voted for this KING thought President Trump wanted to be king. President Trump just loved the country and capitalism!

5 Likes

He’s a loon. Still much better then his underling(s).

1 Like

seems my post are not welcome??? so done here… will not post any longer best wish’s all

1 Like

Not sure what you mean by people not liking your posts.

1 Like

they posted such so???

1 Like

what??

Thanks, Trump!

Q: Under New York’s “proper cause law,” people applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon outside the home must show that they have a concrete need for self-defense, a “proper cause.”

A: Living in NY.

The court majority for more than a decade dealt with the issue of gun rights by steering clear of it. But with then-President Donald Trump’s appointment of three new justices, that equation has changed. Justice Neil Gorsuch has weighed in as a strong advocate for gun rights, and if Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett live up to their records as lower court judges, there is now a Supreme Court majority to strongly support gun rights, potentially at the expense of public safety concerns.

Perhaps even better!

Yes, please! More of that.

"Chief Justice John Roberts expressed similar reservations.

“You don’t have to say when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner that your speech is particularly important,” Roberts said. “The idea you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”"

3 Likes