A Gut Punch to Gun Control but Here’s Why it’s Not The End


Democrats are running scared. CNN Supreme Court Analyst Steve Vladeck believes that no gun control legislation is safe. “We’re in for a whole new slew of litigation challenging any and every gun-control measure in light of the analysis in today’s ruling.” And they should be afraid because the ruling deals a blow to any argument against your God-given Second Amendment right to bear arms. But pace yourself for the fight ahead, because this is not over yet.

The Ruling

New York previously enforced a law that flagrantly violates the Constitution. They required proof of proper cause to carry a firearm outside of one’s private property. This means that in order to exercise proper self-defense, every individual would first have to obtain permission from the state. The case easily made its way to the Supreme Court and the conservative justices ruled against the law 6-3.

Justice Clarence Thomas laid out this bombshell analysis:

“Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

Feel free to read that again because this statement affects far more than just this case.

So… What is this Historical Precedent?

In the historical tradition of this country, a privately armed militia forms the backbone of the nation’s defense. Non-professional soldiers would bring their own privately owned weapons. This report from the Heritage Foundation explains how our founding tradition endorsed a citizenry that was armed to the teeth and ready to take on any foreign army.

Even as recent as the 1900’s America was known for its armed and dangerous citizenry. Both the Japanese and the Russians were terrified to invade the United States homeland. Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto was supposed to have said, “I would never invade America, there is a gun behind every blade of grass.” It’s as Jerome Kavanaugh of the Japan Times says: ‘The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to speak out, to question the assumptions and statements of others, including our government. The Second Amendment gives us the power to defend those questions even if the government doesn’t like them.”

So what does this ruling mean for those rights? It means that states must presume that there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home. It importantly clarifies that “bear arms” definitely means that individuals “have the right to carry” firearms. In short, this ruling and the reasoning behind it threatens every piece of gun control legislation in existence.

The Caveat

You might say, “this means we’ve won, right?” I looks like what it should be; a decisive and final victory, but unfortunately there is a cause for pause. Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh both stated that they concur with the the latte Justice Antonin Scalia concerning the case District of Columbia v. Heller. There, Scalia conceded that the Second Amendment was “neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.” What that means for future cases is yet to be seen but it doesn’t entirely spell good news.

It does mean for certain that these two justices will not immediately support efforts to overturn gun laws in the 43 states this case does not directly address.


Still, this is a win; and one well worth celebrating. Be ready for countless legislative battles across the country in defense of these fundamental freedoms. Don’t back down, and don’t give them an inch. The onus is on us to hold our leaders accountable to the decisive dictims in the founding documents and now the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And remember, there is no ivory tower, palace, stronghold or throne with the authority to usurp your freedom to protect your precious life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

When you sign up to comment you'll also receive our regular newsletter. You can find more about how we use your information here.

3 thoughts on “A Gut Punch to Gun Control but Here’s Why it’s Not The End”

  1. I bought my first Remington Semi-Auto LR 10 shot clip in Ontario, Oregon. I was 14 years old. I still have it. I have several guns and our local and federal government aren`t doing their jobs. I won`t even think about having to rely on the protection they certainly can`t provide. Things are usually over 15 minutes before the police show up. I`ve seen bad cops write up their own reports. They can`t seem to be able to round up illegal guns. I would assume they would want all legal good citizen`s help. The average cop on the beat has had their hands tied. Damned if you do and damned if you don`t. If they can use it politically to make their point and not yours they will. Why are they letting the criminal element out of prison and jails? We have a revolving door at the city lock up? People are being murdered in their beds and still, they want our guns? This doesn`t pass the sniff test people. Those are not all children crossing our borders they are mostly Males. Wouldn`t that be ironic? The only thing missing is the hardware? They already have an army here that we are helping to house and feed. Ancient Rome was that naive they thought that their empire couldn`t be torn down either! Put our gun laws back on the books that have worked for decades and start doing your jobs. EVERYONE.

  2. All the gun control laws aren’t going to keep the criminal element from getting guns do they actually think that they go to gun stores/gun shows/pawn shops to get their guns, look at the Countries that have taken guns from their legal gun owners, Hitler took away guns and we know how that worked out and lets not forget if someone is really intent on killing someone they’ll use whatever is available!

  3. There were towns that required the firearms of visitors to be held by the local authorities until it was time for them to leave as no firearms were allowed to be carried. While this made sense in mostly lawless territories, it still subjected citizens to abuse by lawmen. I can’t think of any time such an abuse was carried out, but it still cannot work with the immense size of cities today. As long as firearms exist, we must be allowed to defend ourselves in like manner that we may be attacked.

Comments are closed.