Gun Control Liars

When They Fib, Provide The Facts

If the aftermath of last June’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen taught us anything, it’s the fact the gun prohibition lobby did not take the loss well at all. They immediately began cranking out lies so demonstrably false, and fomenting public paranoia in the process, it should be easy for anyone in the firearms community to refute them.

All you need to do is keep your eyes and ears open, and when any of these prevaricators opens their pie hole, grassroots gun rights activists like you should call them out. Begin your rebuttal by explaining how it is time for “adults in the room” to take over. Have pertinent facts available.

Gallery Of Lies

Let’s consider some examples because they’re still mouthing the same lies today, more than four months later.

From Brady United: “The Brady team is already fighting in state legislatures to craft legislation that will protect lifesaving gun laws despite the Supreme Court’s radical interpretation of the Second Amendment. Because all Americans are at risk with virtually anyone able to carry a loaded, concealed handgun anywhere.”

The last sentence is an outright lie, and they know it. Bruen did not make it possible for “virtually anyone” to carry a loaded, concealed handgun anywhere. This argument is deliberately designed to create fear. The majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas did not say all gun laws were nullified, nor did it strike down state statutes still requiring a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun. It did not say henceforth convicted felons could suddenly start legally packing guns. To imply otherwise is simply claptrap.

When he closed his 63-page majority opinion, Thomas reminded the nation of something the gun prohibition lobby has been trying to ignore and erase for decades. Now is a good time to read it again.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

From an editorial in the San Luis Obispo Tribune: “The Supreme Court says even that minimal showing of need is contrary to the Second Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority decision, concluded gun owners need offer no such explanation — that the Second Amendment gives them the intrinsic right to carry weapons wherever they please, with the exception of those ‘sensitive places.’”

Protect, Not Permission

The Second Amendment doesn’t give us anything, and never did. The amendment, found in the Bill of Rights, protects the fundamental right to keep and bear arms from government, which is exactly what happened in the Bruen case. Sadly, it took more than a century for the high court to slap down a law requiring citizens to demonstrate a need to exercise an enumerated right.

Fortunately, the editorial attracted hundreds of responses from law-abiding citizens who took the newspaper to task.

You can and must do likewise. This month we will make it through the midterm elections, and hopefully the party of gun prohibition will be in the minority come January. Should this be the case, it will be up to grassroots gun rights activists — meaning everyone reading this column who owns and wants to keep their firearms — to pressure Congress and your state legislatures to repeal onerous gun control laws.

Whenever you see an editorial or something disguised as a straight news article perpetuating such canards, go immediately to the editorial page, find the address to send a “Letter to the Editor” and get cracking. By remaining silent, it creates the impression the gun control crowd is in the right and you are unwilling to fight. Do not allow that to happen.

Justice Thomas did more than just toss New York’s extremist gun control law. He opened the door for challenges to other gun control laws.

And a week later, the high court granted certiorari to four pending gun rights cases, sending them back to lower federal courts for “further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.” Translation: No more “means-end scrutiny” when deciding Second Amendment cases, as has become popular with courts of appeals since the Heller and McDonald rulings more than a decade ago.

Pay Heed

It also means the court accepted these cases for review, putting the lower courts on notice if they fail in their assigned mission to decide the cases conforming to the Second Amendment doctrine in the Bruen decision, the high court will hear those cases.

The cases are important. They include Bianchi, Dominic, et al. v. Frosh, the Maryland challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which would determine whether modern semi-auto rifles are protected by the Second Amendment, and Duncan v. Bonta, the case challenging California’s ban on so-called “high capacity magazines” holding more than 10 cartridges.

By now, the gun ban crowd is spreading hysteria about a possible Supreme Court ruling protecting the right of private citizens to own “weapons of war.” Semiautomatic rifles, whether they are black and look menacing or have wood stocks and look designed for big game hunting are not “weapons of war.” The gun prohibition lobby thought that one up.

As for the magazine ban, a 9th Circuit District Court judge initially ruled California’s ban violated the Second Amendment and subsequently, so did a three-judge appeals court panel. As invariably happens in the 9th Circuit, the case was re-argued before a full en banc panel, which overruled the earlier two rulings.

A similar ban in Washington State is also being challenged, and if the 9th Circuit does its job as directed by the Supreme Court, and finds in favor of gun owners, the Washington statute should also be nullified.

All of this will take time, but fortunately now the Supreme Court has granted certiorari and remanded the cases back for further consideration, maybe it won’t take years.

Take Charge

What is important is turning the Good Ship America back on course, and this means voting against people who have made it clear they disagree with the Bruen ruling and advocate for more restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms.

If this issue of GUNS Magazine reaches you prior to casting your vote, make sure you fill out a ballot to put the right people in charge; you know, the “adults in the room.”

Subscribe To GUNS Magazine

Purchase A PDF Download Of The GUNS Magazine November 2022 Issue Now!


Game On!

Remember Sep. 12, 2019? It was on that date, during an early Democratic presidential candidates’ debate, when far-left former Congressman Robert Francis...
Read Full Article
Crash the Gun...

Keep this in perspective: If anti-gun politicians are not in office, they cannot make their policies into law.
Read Full Article
Watch Out For...

About six months ago, anti-gun California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his proposal for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and it quickly became known...
Read Full Article