One judge out of New York, who was originally appointed by former President Donald Trump, took time this past week to handily block a new gun law from going into effect and put the responsible Democrats on blast for attempting to “eviscerate the Bill of Rights.”
U.S. District Judge John Sinatra Jr. put forth an injunction effectively shutting down a new gun law that would ban people in New York from carrying weapons in places of worship.
“The court reiterates that ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individuals right to keep and bear arms – from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen] – dictates that New York’s new place of worship restriction is equally unconstitutional,” explained the Judge, as reported by The Daily Caller.
“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the Status quo – not 2022 legislation on the books for nine weeks,” the judge went on, seemingly targeting the Democrat-controlled New York legislature. “Legislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights. Every day they do is one too many.”
“The nation’s history does not countenance such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all places of worship across the state,” expressed Sinatra. “The right to self defense is no less important and no less recognized at these places.”
Back in October, the federal judge issued a hold on the law, also expressing, “In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulations in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. … New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions.”
Back within its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision, a June ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the long-held restrictions placed by New York on the carrying of concealed weapons stood in direct violation of both the second and 14th amendment rights of Americans.
The case focused on a previous New York state law from 1911 that earmarked the right to a concealed carry permit to “good moral character” and “proper cause.” The majority opinion of the Supreme Court, penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, pointed out a major issue with the second condition, which unlawfully made the people of New York highlight a “special need for self-defense.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” explained Thomas. “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.”
“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” the Justice concluded.
