Alito Takes a Blow Torch to Liberal Justices’ Dissent by Katie Pavlich for Town Hall
GNN Note – Finally. Someone stands up for the American people. Thank you, President Trump. / END
On Thursday morning the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down restrictive “may issue” concealed carry laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and explained how the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe thatâs one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve Godâs children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
The arguments made by the dissenting justices were wildly irrelevant from the issue of constitutionality and current law, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to file a separate, concurring opinion destroying their claims. He also took issue with their ignorance and arrogance surrounding the facts of lawful gun ownership vs. criminality. (Take a look, bolding is mine)
Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendmentâs adoption as rooted in ââthe natural right of resistance and self-preservation.ââ Id., at 594. â[T]he inherent right of self-defense,â Heller explained, is âcentral to the Second Amendment right.â Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that âthe people,â not just members of the âmilitia,â have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.Â