It has been a busy time for gun rights attorneys, such as Bill Sack, director of legal operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Washington-based legal advocacy organization that has flooded the courts with challenges to gun regulations nationwide.
“The second Bruen came down, there was the starting gun for a sprint, for which we have not stopped yet,” he told Stateline. “Stuff is ripe for a fresh challenge.”
Sack and other gun rights advocates are now asking the courts to define the Supreme Court’s new Bruen standard: a series of “who, what and where” questions about which gun rights limitations are allowed under the latest interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Who can own a firearm? Cases going through the courts are challenging laws that ban firearm ownership by anyone younger than 21, or anyone who has been convicted of nonviolent offenses or people who live in public housing.
What sort of firearm equipment can someone possess? There are state laws that may put restrictions on owning handguns, assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and untraceable “ghost guns” that people can assemble from online-bought or 3D-printed parts, such as the one allegedly used by the suspect in the recent assassination of a UnitedHealthcare executive in New York City.
Where can people possess a firearm? The U.S. Supreme Court has established that states can ban firearms in “sensitive places,” but states and courts are still determining what that means. Some states ban firearms on mass transit and in public parks or government buildings. This month, Michigan banned firearms in and around polling places.
Still, Sack expressed optimism.
“We are making major inroads,” Sack said. “The arc of history will show that this time period was very good for us and very bad for them.”
— Matt Vasilogambros in Judges topple gun control laws as courts chart an uncertain path forward
Bruen was a milestone for a return to our Constitution and states like New York and California are perpetrating insurrection as they pass convoluted laws in defiance of the SCOTUS decision.
Thought you all might enjoy this:
Knott and Shott got into a gunfight. Knott was shot and Shott was not. Therefore it was better to be Shott than Knott. But what if the shot Shott shot didn’t hit Knott but Shott? Then the shot Shott shot shot Shott.
Obviously, but Who’s on first?
I hope we get what we want from the Ghost Gun decision in June…