SFC13557
NES Member
The case established a constitutional right to carry pistols in public for self-defense.
From Today's WSJ."The range had a faint smell of crisped paper. “Stand like you’re going to throw a punch. Lean forward. Line up the sights,” the instructor told me. “The ‘A’ in AK-47 doesn’t stand for accuracy. OK, let it fly.” I was in Las Vegas to meet with Chuck Michel, a leading lawyer for Second Amendment advocacy groups and an old high-school friend. What happens in Vegas . . . is because machine gun ranges can’t be found in my home state, California.
I’m not a gun guy—though I’ve hunted with an Ithaca shotgun and even shot a .357 Magnum—but I respect the Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Still, I’m horrified and saddened by every mass shooting that lights up national headlines. Other shootings are rarely mentioned, like the 29 shot, eight fatally, in Chicago on the last weekend of June. And most other weekends.
Next up was a belt-fed gas-operated M240 Bravo machine gun. “This is what Biden left behind in Afghanistan,” the instructor noted. Finally, he handed me a semiautomatic AR-15, often called an “assault weapon.” Mr. Michel explained, “Pistols with magazines are also semiautomatic. AR-15s are labeled assault weapons because of scary cosmetic features, a muzzle brake or flash suppressor or a collapsible stock, even though ARs have similar stopping power as many other firearms.” It was very slow shooting compared with the machine guns, though I still don’t understand why you would want to own one.
Well, because gun rights are individual rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court upheld gun ownership for self-defense in the home. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) upheld the right to carry pistols outside the home for self-defense, striking down “may-issue” licensing systems that required a “proper cause” or “special need” to carry firearms.
Now all states must allow open or concealed carry—“shall-issue” licensing. I don’t care if you love guns or hate guns; this is the new reality for individual rights. “This was a hard reset,” Mr. Michel says. “Gun laws passed pre-Bruen are all subject to relitigation. It’s legal vs. policy.”
It also guarantees full employment for gun-advocacy lawyers. “Since Bruen, gun-reform groups, often funded by Bloomberg and Soros, are going state to state to pass laws with restrictions on people, places and gun types.” Mr. Michel says. But there is now a Bruen test, as written in the ruling, to “assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.” Mr. Michel sums the test up: “Was there anything in existence in 1791 that would indicate the founders would have tolerated these kinds of laws or restrictions?”
As far as restrictions on gun types, you may be thinking there were no magazines or machine guns in 1791. But guns were more advanced than many assume—innovations like Kentucky Long Rifles helped win the Revolutionary War. Mr. Michel says some courts have suggested drawing a line between automatic and semiautomatic. He thinks that restrictions on common-use semiautomatic firearms don’t pass the Bruen test. We’ll see.
Bruen does note historic gun restrictions for “sensitive places” like government buildings but it specifically says you can’t declare the entire island of Manhattan a sensitive place. I was surprised at Mr. Michel’s answer when I asked about the old line “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” He said many gun advocates aren’t opposed to mental-health screenings, but other restrictions, such as restraining orders, should allow for individual due process. Gun reformers should exploit this, and even strengthen the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
I asked Mr. Michel how to stop mass shootings in schools and elsewhere. “What law are you going to pass to stop someone? Gun-free zones? They don’t work. Gun bans? Same.” Chicago’s strict gun ordinances obviously don’t help its gun-crime problem.
Mr. Michel says, “States with more-liberal carry laws have lower gun violence.” I’ve seen studies both ways. “Here’s why. Maybe 5% of citizens get carry licenses. No one would go duck hunting if 5% of the ducks could shoot back.” Good gun owners deter bad ones. We saw this in the 2020 Texas church shooting, stopped short by a lawful gun-carrying citizen.
I asked why the left has such an intense focus on gun control. He answered, “They want to wipe out gun ownership in a generation. There’s a growing movement to reshape society by restricting individual freedoms.” No kidding. DEI. ESG. Defund the police. Woke cancelings. Mr. Michel notes, “Guns are the last obstacle to social engineering.” Food for thought.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, perhaps knowing he’ll lose gun arguments in courts, has quixotically proposed a constitutional amendment with gun restrictions. Post-Bruen, that’s probably the only way to do it. Until then, I suspect sensible laws that screen buyers, rather than places or gun types, have the best chance to be effective."
Write to [email protected].
