There are a couple of cases we’re expecting the Supreme Court to rule on here soon. One deals with gun rights for people who use drugs considered illegal under federal law, while the other addresses Hawaii’s version of the “vampire rule.”
While one involves a long-standing federal law and the other revolves around a relatively recent measure that was part of the state’s “carry killer” provisions, the fact that both are being addressed by the Supreme Court seems almost poetic.
And it seems that Reuters looked to some experts to give them their take on these cases, and neither is going to work out the way the anti-gunners want.
In a nation divided over how to address persistent firearms violence including frequent mass shootings, the court has taken an expansive view of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which enshrines the right to keep and bear arms.
During January arguments in the Hawaii case, the conservative justices appeared ready to expand gun rights again, indicating skepticism on Second Amendment grounds toward the state’s law. Hawaii’s law requires a property owner’s “express authorization” to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public. Four other U.S. states have similar laws.
The court is expected to reject Hawaii’s defense of the law, according to Hayley Lawrence, a gun control advocate who serves as executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.
“It seems to me Hawaii is going to lose 6-3,” Lawrence said.
The court, Lawrence said, also might shed further light on the legal framework it adopted in a 2022 decision in a case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for analyzing whether firearms control laws pass Second Amendment muster. The Bruen decision stated that any government regulation restricting firearms must be consistent with the U.S. historical tradition of gun regulation.
That would be helpful, because while I thought Bruen was really damn clear, leave it to the lawyers to make a muddled mess out of it.
The so-called vampire rule is something that wouldn’t even be considered by any state in the country. No state, federal, or local authority would even consider trying to say you couldn’t pray over a meal without the express permission of a restaurant’s owner. They’d never tell you that you can’t discuss politics without a sign on the coffeehouse door giving you permission to do so.
The vampire rule, though, requires you to get express permission to lawfully carry a firearm, rather than putting the onus on those businesses that don’t want a particular right exercised on their property. It’s insane, and it’s good that the Supreme Court is expected to reject it. My hope is that the decision boils down to some variation of “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you morons not understand?”
I’m not getting it, but a guy can dream.
Now, as for the issue of gun rights for users of illegal drugs…
The court heard arguments in March over the legality of a federal criminal statute banning anyone who is an “unlawful user” of any controlled substance from possessing firearms or ammunition. That provision is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which outlines specific categories of people, such as felons and fugitives, who are barred from possessing firearms.
The case was brought by a Texas man who has said he uses marijuana several times a week and was charged under the law. The same law was invoked in charges brought against then-President Joe Biden’s son Hunter in 2023. The elder Biden later pardoned his son. The Trump administration is defending the law.
University of Chicago law professor Darrell Miller said the court appears skeptical of the provision that prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing a firearm but also is concerned about sweeping too broadly and undermining other parts of the broader law such as the part dealing with keeping guns from felons.
“The court is deciding a drug case but they have one eye on the felony possession statute,” Miller said.
The Trump administration is wrong to defend this one. I get it, mind you, because users of illegal drugs are far more likely to turn to violent crime in order to fuel their drug habit than most others might, but that’s not how gun rights work in this country.
Moreover, while I don’t condone illegal drug use of any kind, the truth is that there weren’t any drug laws at the time of the founding, nor around the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification, which means such laws are inconsistent with the history, text, and tradition of gun rights in the United States. It’s blatantly unconstitutional.
Should an illegal drug user–which includes the guy who took medical marijuana in accordance with state law, but before it was rescheduled as lawful at the federal level–commit a crime with a firearm, others should use their gun rights to eliminate the potential for recidivism. You shouldn’t blanket ban an entire group who aren’t committing violent offenses.
Especially when those most inclined to break the law tend to also know how to get guns without going through a licensed dealer. Weird, I know, but that’s how it works out.
Both of these are important gun rights wins, and I’ll welcome them when they come. I also welcome the wailing and gnashing of teeth from anti-gun voices, which will no doubt produce plenty of fodder for us here at Bearing Arms.
However, neither are the review of assault weapon bans we’ve desperately needed from the Supreme Court, nor any of a thousand other issues of equal importance. Still, take what we can get when we can get it, because it beats the decades of silence from the Court on the issue of gun rights.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
