As Americans unravel the insanity surrounding another series of mass shootings, the gun rights debate intensifies once again.
Much of the contentiousness surrounding these arguments stem from the liberal left’s immediate attack on lawful gun ownership.
In typical liberal fashion, Democrats immediately attack the gun, not the crazed shooter. Millions of law-abiding Americans own firearms, but the majority are not out shooting into crowds, killing innocent people. Millions of Americans own guns legally and use them properly.
It’s not about the guns; it’s about the mentally unstable people who kill people with guns. It doesn’t matter what kind of gun it is. If a lunatic is intent on killing people, the type of firearm will not prevent them from following through with their intentions.
One such exaggerated response came from Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. The Democrat insists that military-style firearms “pose grave risks to public safety, as recent mass shootings in other states have made clear.” What about handgun violence across America?
Like the majority of the liberal left, Frosh thinks that guns themselves kill people. They do not. Crazy people, most of whom should not own a firearm, kill people.
Since one landmark ruling on a case from New York, The U.S. Supreme Court continues to uphold the Second Amendment.
In a June 23 ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that it’s a constitutional right to carry firearms for public self-defense.
Another series of rulings further supported this opinion. The Court’s decisions are based on the foundation that the Second Amendment is more than just a right.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly specifies, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The key point here is “shall not be infringed.”
As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “It makes no sense to recognize Americans’ right to defend themselves in their homes while denying them the ability to defend themselves outside their homes.” Thomas insisted that “confrontation can surely take place outside the home.”
The Supreme Court’s rulings state that these laws cross a legal line and constitute infringement. The Hawaii requirement to show cause was struck down as unconstitutional. Hawaii requires lawful gun owners keep their weapons at their business, home, or sojourn.
To receive a legal concealed-carry permit, the applicant had to prove they “feared injury to themselves or to their property.” The law for open carry permits is equally murky. The law reads, “where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated.”
Again, the Court’s rulings strike down laws that clearly “infringe” on gun ownership rights. A law-abiding citizen does not need to prove they have a “need to own and carry a firearm.”
It’s their right. Any law that curtails that right is an infringement. The court ruled correctly.