SCOTUS decision invalidates NYS gun laws: Men perpetrate the majority of gun crimes, but women also assist in purchasing, concealing, and reselling firearms on behalf of others.
SCOTUS ruling strikes down NYS gun law
Theodore O’Neil-White: So tell me about this Supreme Court decision, what it means, and how significant it is.
Peter Yacobucci: Well, I believe it reflects a pattern that began in 2008.
The First Clause of the Second Amendment states that because the Supreme Court has recognized the right to bear arms as a personal right and not a right tied to a well-regulated militia.
In 2008, that choice alone is revolutionary. And today’s ruling only serves to strengthen that.
And it will be applied in the future to overturn gun control regulations across the US.
O’Neil-White: So, in essence, it’s claiming that the Second Amendment is unaffected by this?
Yacobucci: The Second Amendment states that, in the event that a well-regulated militia is required for the Free State’s protection, the people’s right to keep and bear weapons shall not be violated.
Since the Heller decision in 2008, the first clause—a well-regulated militia—has been mostly symbolic and hasn’t even been written into the Constitution.
The second half of the amendment is now the sole focus.
Furthermore, as the ability to defend oneself with a weapon is a personal right, no restrictions may be placed on persons.
O’Neil-White: Therefore, it seems sense that I could bring my firearm to work, right?
Yacobucci: Now the question is, will there be restrictions prohibiting people from bringing guns onto our campus since I teach at a university that is a gun-free zone? I haven’t had time to read all 135 pages of this decision, so I can’t say whether those will be sustained. However, I believe that in the future, challenges will be made to these kinds of restrictions on time, space, and who is permitted to possess a firearm.
O’Neil-White: I am aware that you just admitted that you didn’t read the entire 135-page judgement. Do you, however, see anything else in particular?
Yacobucci: a few things. One, this is yet another hint that tomorrow will bring about the release of yet another batch of instances.
And as more wire cases are made public, the gap between red and blue states in the country is widening. And the Supreme Court demonstrates that.
The dissenting opinion, written by the soon-to-retire liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, differs from the majority opinion in this case, written by the conservative Clarence Thomas.
They are talking past each other and aren’t even truly discussing the same basic concepts.
And that’s a reflection of American politics at the moment, both for the Supreme Court in particular and for our nation as a whole. That is a terrible, terrible thing.
O’Neil-White: Another thing? Overall?
Let me just add one more issue. Why aren’t there more significant cases before the Supreme Court? And as a result, our federal government is dysfunctional and hasn’t been able to fix issues in the last decade, if not more recently.
Our system was created to force compromise by the founding fathers, but either the Republicans or the Democrats are blocking any chance for either side to enact legislation.
And the government can take action if a compromise cannot be reached. As a result, cases involving guns or religious freedom are often brought before the courts.
The decision-making process then shifts to the courts, which is clearly against the founding fathers’ intent and is becoming increasingly political.
O’Neil-White: So what’s the answer to this problem?
Yacobucci: I wouldn’t be writing books or making national television appearances right now if I understood the solution.