HUGE: SCOTUS Strikes Down Unconstitutional NY Gun Law

BUCK: Let’s dive into this ’cause this is something that honestly folks near and dear to my heart. Let me tell you why. I’m a born-and-raised New Yorker. I was born in New York City, grew up there, and other than my time in the CIA and my time in college, I have been a New York resident for basically my entire life. And one of the great frustrations of living in not just New York City but New York State, is that it is, along with a handful of other states: Maryland, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey — there are six that are cited in the Supreme Court decision, but…

Hawaii, along with a handful of other states, effectively Second Amendment no-go zones, as much as they can be. You can own a shotgun, although you have to get a permit usually, depends on the state. But, overall, is they have in place a regime that’s meant to prevent you from actually enjoying your right to bear arms. Key phrase here, as we all know, folks, “to keep and bear arms.” That first part, keeping up of the arms, was dealt with pretty well in D.C. v. Heller. Remember that case from some years ago?

You had an individual licensed to have a gun for work but who lived in the District of Columbia and couldn’t even bring his firearm that he had at work all day home with him. So that’s crazy, right? But that was the law, and they would arrest you. D.C. was vicious about enforcing even the most minor infractions of firearms law. Unless you’re, you know, a gang member with a long history of drugs; then they’re always looking. And this is the thing you have to remind yourself about the libs.

If you’re somebody who has guns and is actually a danger to society, they don’t want to make an example of you. They want to go soft on you. This is what we’ve seen with the progressive prosecutors and criminal justice reform, as they call it. But if you’re guy who likes to go hunting on the weekends but you cross from Virginia into D.C. with two shotgun shells in your pocket that are 20-gauge meant for pheasants, guess what? Too bad. You’re on your own. They’re gonna lock you up. That’s their attitude, right?

Well, in this case the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen — Bruen is the superintendent of the New York State police — what we have here is the “bear arms” part of it finally coming into Supreme Court focus. And by 6-3 the proper cause requirement for getting a handgun permit, a firearm permit to have and carry a concealed pistol or revolver, the proper cause requirement is gone now. It is unconstitutional.

Now, what this means, in effect — remember D.C. v. Heller said, “You gotta be able to — if you’re a law-abiding citizen and you meet some very basic thresholds, you gotta be able to — buy a gun. You can’t just say, ‘You’re not allowed to have a gun, period,’ because the Second Amendment.” Well, now it’s can you get a concealed carry permit? Can you actually carry your weapon with you? And I know there’s gonna be the whole distinction between concealed carry and open carry and all this.

But just to be able to carry in any capacity in these states was not allowed unless you were special, unless you could prove, demonstrate a special need that is different from just people in general. And 6-3 decision here. Roberts did join the majority; so he may be a wimp, but he’s not a lunatic. 6-3 decision, took a sledgehammer to the anti-gun regime of so many of these states, or I should say the anti-bearing arms regime, right? ‘Cause you’re loud to own in New York, you’re allowed to own a firearm in California, but can you carry it anywhere?

Can you get a concealed carry permit? Now, in the state of New York, as I said, this is near and dear to me because I have not been able to. As an adult, I have not been able to enjoy Second Amendment rights in my home state, and it’s obscene. And one of my favorite parts of this decision, one of my favorite parts of the way they dismantle… I mean the libs, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, just pathetic stuff in their dissent. Honestly. “Oh, but there’s so much gun violence!” Wait, but there’s so much gun violence, you guys are banning guns in these states in every way you can but there’s still so much violence.

Almost like the only people who are gonna have guns in a no gun regime state like New York or California are the bad guys. Oh, that is what happens. That is what happens. New York bans and has for over a hundred years. I’ve known about the Sullivan law passed in 1911… By the way, I rarely would say this you to. If you are a Second Amendment enthusiast, though, reading this whole decision just because of the history that it goes into is fascinating, the history of weapons and concealed carry and the Old West and even goes back in the medieval period, goes back to English common law, seventeenth century, eighteenth century.

It’s fascinating history, of course, written by the constitutionalists, the conservatives on the court in their 6-3 slap down of this unconstitutional absurdity of you’re not allowed — a law-abiding American in these states was not allowed — to get a pistol to carry concealed for protection unless they were special, which basically meant unless you’re connected, unless you know how to work the system. And that’s why honestly you know who is the getting concealed carry permits in New York City specifically? Celebrities.

Famous, important people, powerful people, and they usually often had armed security on top of all that, too, but, you know, they wanted to feel like they could defend themselves. Well, that’s not the way this is supposed to be. But the history that it goes through in this case is fascinating, just from a perspective if you want to know the history of self-defense law as it pertains to the carrying of arms, really interesting stuff. And then beyond that, they make the case very clearly that in a place like New York, ’cause there’s so much that goes into this.

There’s a two-step test they discuss. I mean, the legality of it is fascinating. But, really, though, it came down to for so many decades now and even in a post-Heller world this is what the courts — numerous appeals courts had upheld this standard which was essentially, yeah, but if Democrat states think it’s really important to not let you carry guns, that’s — that overrides your Second Amendment right to carry, because we say so is effectively…

Because we’re neurotic libs and the notion of people who are law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves, having a chance to defend themselves is something that upset people who live in, you know, the fanciest parts of the Boston and the Upper West Side of Manhattan and Santa Monica and Beverly Hills out in Los Angeles. It upsets people who live in safe neighborhoods. “Oh, my gosh! You mean my neighbor who’s totally law-abiding and trustworthy in every aspect of his life or her life might be able to carry a concealed weapon? That’s terrifying!

“I want only the gang members, the murderers, the assaulters, et cetera, to be able to carry, apparently.” That’s what the libs have been suggesting this whole time. Because as it states in this — and you should read it. This is a total smackdown. This is home run from the perspective of the Second Amendment, this decision, I’m saying. This was really as good as you could have hoped this case would be. And, by the way, we may be getting Roe overturned tomorrow. So, this is one of the biggest weeks, possibly, the Supreme Court has had in at least a decade.

I mean, this is massive. If this continues… Assuming Roe comes down tomorrow with the… It’s not actually Roe, but it could overturn Roe. So, here we are now looking at a major win for the Second Amendment. And as I was telling you, we can go into more of the tests and everything else, but the most important takeaway is that Democrats want to be in a position to tell you that you cannot, through their state legislatures or the mayor’s office or the police commissioner or whomever, you’re not allowed to defend yourself with a concealed pistol.

And, of course, there are 43 states, I believe, that already have some form of “you may get,” right? Most states have already understood this, but there are six — and they happen to be some of the biggest. They are the biggest population state, California, and a couple of other mega population states, New York, New Jersey, have been terrible on this issue for a long time. So, now we’re through that; you will be able to… They’re gonna have to pass laws in the state legislature.

I’m sure they’re gonna make it annoying, they’re gonna make it expensive. But isn’t it fascinating that at the same time that some Republican Senators are bending the knee on red flag laws and, mental health funding that they think is going to stop shootings or whatever they believe will be accomplished with this, some expansion of background check to go into juvenile records, the same week that Republicans bent the knee, the Supreme Court actually dealt a devastating blow to the gun grabbers. And it’s about more than…

And I’ll come back and talk to you about this in a second. There’s more at stake here than just your neurotic lib neighbor, or libs like Pelosi and Schumer who have been defended by men — paid by the state — with guns their entire adult lives. It’s not just that it makes them uncomfortable that you — you, just a person, an American, not an important person, just a person — might be able to defend yourself. There’s also some fascinating lessons from that history that is laid out in this New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling.

And I want to get to that because it actually goes to the heart of the Second Amendment, and it goes to, I think, some of the very important lessons we have learned when it comes to the state and its overreach and tyranny in recent years. So, we’ll dive into something like that when we come back. I mean, I have so much more to talk to you about, including a case of how wrong the criminal justice reform mind-set can go in New York City and other places.