the Supreme Court is unfortunately poised to further loosen
America's already loose gun laws by the end of this month.
This is something that shows just how broken our institutions are because even
if we miraculously miraculously get Congress to act to
pass common sense gun regulations, like closing any
type of federal background check loophole, getting rid of the gun show loophole.
Maybe implementing some red flag laws to ensure people who have serious mental
health issues don't access guns, even if they do all that and
that is a tall mountain to climb.
It is very likely that those laws,
those regulations will be challenged by the same weapons manufacturers.
Those cases will very likely get to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court.
Well, let me tell you what they're up to right now and you'll get the picture.
So right now they're hearing a case and
they're set to make a decision about this case later this month.
The case in question is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, inc vs
Bruin, which involves a 1913 law that requires someone who
wants to carry a concealed gun in public in New York to have a license to do so and
in order to obtain said license prove that they have proper cause.
Now, what does that mean?
Well, in new york, that proper cause can't be some vague fear of violence,
but a credible threat against that person's life and
one that cannot be mitigated in other ways.
So just to sum that up In New York as we speak.
Thanks to this law that's been on the books since 1913, you're not able to walk
around New York, you're not you're not able to go on the subway with a concealed
weapon unless you have managed to get a license.
And in order to get that license,
you have to prove proper cause that there is a legitimate threat against your life.
There's no other way of mitigating that threat and
you genuinely need that weapon as a form of self defense.
Now, it's incredibly difficult to prove that you're allowed to
have a weapon if you go through the regulations in that state, in your home,
as a as a form of protection or if you use it for your hobby,
whatever it is, but concealed carry, you know, generally speaking,
is not easy to do legally in the state of new york.
And so that has been challenged.
The Supreme Court is hearing that case.
And based on what we have seen from the Supreme Court so
far as they're asking questions.
During this case, it does appear that the conservative majority is very likely to
strike down this law.
And what would that mean?
It sets precedent indicating that any other state that has laws or
regulations against concealed carry would now have no power.
Those laws would be reversed by the Supreme Court's decision.
So during oral arguments last november, the court's conservative goon squad
peppered attorneys with a cornucopia of absurd hypotheticals arguing that
changing the law so that carrying a gun on a crowded our train is
not a public safety threat but should be an essential constitutional right and
best levin over at Vanity Fair provides examples from the questions that were
asked by these conservative justices for instance Brett Kavanaugh who like Amy
coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court in part due to his firearms friendly
record as a judge wanted to know why someone's proper cause can't just be
I want to be able to defend myself, Can you not see why it would be,
you know dangerous to just kind of take anyone at face value and allow you,
you really want people to be captive on a train knowing that there's a bunch of
people on that train who very likely have a gun concealed.
And also how do you determine as a member of law enforcement,
whether someone is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun.
So if a bad guy with a gun opens fire on a train and
then there's a good guy with a gun who then returns fire to defend himself or
defend herself, defend everyone else on the train when the cops arrive,
How do the cops determine who the good guy or the bad guy is?
Like what did that actually potentially lead to more unnecessary deaths.
But anyway, it was Brett Kavanaugh.
Okay, so now let's go to Samuel Alito because
that was one part with with Kavanaugh he's asking a question.
Usually the framing of their question lets you know how they're likely
to rule on this type of case.
Right let's go to Samuel Alito because I think that was even more telling.
It was arch conservative Samuel Alito who did the hardest bidding on behalf of
America's gun enthusiasts suggesting that new york law is some kind of cruel and
unusual punishment inflicted upon ordinary law abiding citizens
who need to carry a gun on them when they ride the subway system
which he painted as a crime ridden hellhole.
In fact we have some sound from that moment in in you know deciding this case.
Let's let's take a listen to what Samuel Alito had to say for ordinary law abiding
citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self defense.
So I want you to think about people like this.
People who work late at night in Manhattan,
it might be somebody who cleans offices, might be a doorman at an apartment,
might be a nurse or an orderly might be somebody who washes dishes.
None of these people has a criminal record.
They're all law abiding citizens.
They get off work around midnight maybe even
after midnight they have to commute home by Subway maybe by bus
when they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop.
They have to walk some distance through a high crime area and
they apply for a license and they say look,
nobody has, has said I am going to mug you next thursday.
However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area and I am scared to death.
They do not get licenses.
Is that right?
That is in general right?
Yes, if there's nothing particular to them, that's right.
How is that consistent with the core right to self defense which is
protected by the Second Amendment Because the core right to self
defense doesn't, as as this court said doesn't allow for
all to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.
So the woman that you heard in the audio, there was new york, solicitor general
General Barbara Underwood and I think she makes a great point there.
There look there are limitations to every constitutional right.
We know that and the idea that there should be like no limitations in regard to
firearms is absolutely ridiculous.
And you know, it's interesting how Samuel Alito's reasoning is.
Well, all of our institutions have failed the american people and so
why don't we allow them to live out their delusions of being Rambo by allowing them
to have concealed carry under any and all circumstances to protect themselves.
So never mind the fact that police fighting crime is a failed institution.
Never mind the fact that we have people swimming in a sea of guns in America
where criminals have easy access to guns legally by the way, legally.
Okay, you can go to a gun show as a convicted felon and
buy as many guns as you want without having to undergo a background check.
Maybe we do something about that.
So you know, maybe we can do something about lowering crime,
especially crime involving a gun, crime involving a gun during a mugging,
whatever it is instead of focusing on, hey, these are all failing institutions.
We have failed the american people.
We need to find a way to ensure that americans feel safe as their commuting.
You know, on a train to and from work.
No, no, let's actually make the situation less safe
by allowing more people to have concealed carry because we all
like have decided to buy this delusion that you know, as long as you have a gun,
you can effectively defend yourself and it's gonna be great.
Well as we know, and I think the shooting in Uvalde Uvalde texas has proven it.
Yeah, good guys with guns don't necessarily keep anyone safe.
Okay, even if they're trained to do so even if it's their literal job to do.
So I don't know, I mean maybe I'm wrong, I personally do not want to be
stuck on a train on my way to work or back home from work knowing that there
are probably several people on that train who are armed with a concealed weapon.
Maybe we need to really rethink the laws that make it so
easy for criminals to legally purchase guns.
But you know, that would be really tough for conservative justices who were
intentionally put on that court to loosen the already lax gun laws we have.
So that's what we get to look forward to with the Supreme Court.
Again, this is a disaster because we now need
members of Congress who do more than legislate.
We need fighters who are willing to reform the Supreme Court, whether it's through
packing the Supreme Court, rethinking the Supreme Court, whatever it is.
And honestly, I don't see anyone up to that task.
They might be able to pass legislation.
I don't even really think they have the ability to do that at this point because
of how weak, cowardly and feckless they are.
But even if they did, you still have to deal with the Supreme Court.
And I don't see any fighters in Congress that are willing to do what's necessary to
reform that institution.