The past few weeks have been, in a word, rough for the gun rights movement. We were able to enjoy a victory, but that brief respite pales in comparison to several significant losses. More importantly, however, is the response that conservatives (generally) have had to these losses. Outside of gun-focused groups, I have seen little to no discussion from conservative pundits, politicians, etc. about any of these issues. When our rights are being stripped at an ever-increasing rate, we need to be more involved, more aware, and to give our rights the respect and attention they deserve. There’s a saying that when you’re rich, you go broke slowly at first, and then all at once. The same holds true for our rights, they have been eroded slowly, and if we don’t push back, the day will come when we lose them all at once.
NYSRPA v. NYC and SCOTUS
NYSRPA v. NYC was a case before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) that many – like myself – had hoped would be a landmark victory for the Second Amendment. For those unfamiliar, the case would have dealt with NYC’s premises permits, which allow a permit holder to possess a handgun at home, at a range, and while en-route to/from one of those locations (provided the handgun was in a locked case, separate from ammo, etc.). However, previously, this permit had a number of administrative restrictions, namely that a permit holder could not take the handgun to a second home, a range outside the city, or make any stops along the way between locations. When it became clear that the case would be heard by SCOTUS, New York State made NYC’s restrictions illegal in what was clearly a last-ditch attempt to avoid review. On April 27, this measure succeeded with a ruling that the case was moot. Although the case was not the victory I had wanted, I highly recommend any interested readers take the time to examine Justice Alito’s dissent. Additionally, Justice Kavanaugh’s agreement with the majority on the issue of mootness while acknowledging that the court needs to address the scope of the Second Amendment, and the proper application of Heller in the future is well worth the time to read. A section from the end of Justice Alito’s dissent that I feel sums up the core of the issue surrounding NYSRPA v. NYC, I believe, signals a promising future for other second amendment cases before the court: “In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type. The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated. We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern.”
While there is always hope for SCOTUS to clarify the Second Amendment for lower courts, it seems that we will have to keep waiting. Ten Second Amendment cases were pending before NYSRPA v. NYC, and on May 1 the court voted on cases to take up for the coming session. Unfortunately, SCOTUS will not be hearing any of these cases at the current time. With that said, it is perfectly normal for cases to be relisted several times before they are reviewed. While there was a desire from the gun community in general for a ruling on a case such as Rogers v. Grewal or Worman v. Healey, it seems that it is not in the cards for the time being.
Freedom Week 2.0
In more happy legal news, District Judge Benitez granted an injunction in Rhodes v. Beccera, the lawsuit regarding California’s ammunition background check scheme. District Judge Benitez was responsible for the “Freedom Week” enjoyed by Californians earlier this year when they were able to legally purchase standard capacity magazines, and again he has delivered an excellent ruling. The entire system for background checks had been a complete disaster from the start. Beyond the ludicrous nature of requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, no part of it functioned. To purchase ammunition required a REAL ID (a new kind of identification card), and to be checked through a state system that was plagued with false denials, faulty identification, overwhelming, and more. Unfortunately on April 25, the law was reinstated by an appeals court, once again keeping Californians from being able to easily access ammunition.
Defense Distributed v. Grewal
For the second time in this column, New Jersey Attorney General Grewal has made an appearance. Unlike the previously mentioned case which was in regards to New Jersey’s “may issue” carry permits, Defense Distributed v. Grewal is a gun rights case about free speech. For those unfamiliar, Defense Distributed is a company specializing in homemade firearms. They first became well known with the Liberator single-shot pistol, which is almost entirely 3D printed out of polymer, but Defense Distributed is involved in a variety of homemade firearms designs, including the Ghost Gunner (a specialized mini-CNC for milling 80% receivers). This lawsuit was on the issue of whether or not New Jersey was violating First Amendment rights by ordering Defense Distributed to stop sharing files for 3D printed firearms. The case was brought to court in January, but was dismissed on May 4 with Texas District Judge Pitman’s decision that the case was outside of his jurisdiction.
Armed protest in Michigan
Recently, photos of an armed protest at the Michigan state 
capitol (right) made their rounds on the internet. While the left was all too quick to disparage the protestors, frankly I see nothing wrong with this. Just like the January 20 protest in Virginia, this was a peaceful demonstration by citizens exercising their rights and telling the government that they don’t approve of how it’s running the state. Whenever Americans engage in armed protest, there is always a debate amongst gun rights supporters of whether it “sends the right message.” Optics are a powerful tool in politics, and there are many who say that such displays hurt our cause amongst the unconvinced. That by expressing our disapproval while carrying rifles and wearing body armor we are delegitimizing ourselves in the eyes of the public. I understand this concern, but more importantly, such a display is the very embodiment of the American ethos as it relates to the people standing up against the government. This country was founded by armed protestors, and despite what you may hear from those who don’t fully appreciate the purpose of the Second Amendment, I have no doubt that the founding fathers would have wholeheartedly supported those protestors.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
Canada’s new AWB
Perhaps my concern (and condemnation) for the domestic policy of a foreign state may seem odd, given the focus of this paper on American politics. However, as an American, I firmly believe in the principles set forth by our forefathers. They believed that all men have certain inalienable rights, endowed by their Creator; one of these rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau (left) has decided to single-handedly – without parliament – ban a list of 1,500 firearms by name for civilian possession in Canada. However, 
the list can be simplified as the following platforms (and derivatives thereof): SG550, AR-10, AR-15, Ruger Mini-14/Mini-30, M1A, VZ58, Robinson Armament XCR, CZ Scorpion, Beretta Cx4, Sig MCX/MPX, “any firearm with a bore of 20mm or greater” (which includes any 12 or 10 gauge shotgun with a removable choke), “any firearm capable of firing a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules.”
Prime Minister Trudeau has wanted this kind of expansive ban for years but has waited until now to do so, why? The answer to me is plain: first, there is an ongoing pandemic that has emboldened governments around the world and will minimize domestic protest, objection, etc.; second, the recent public mass shooting gives him the ability to claim that he is “doing something.” As though this wasn’t enough, Trudeau is now saying that his government will not stop with this new AWB, but will continue to ban more firearms, specifically handguns. We can also see that this ban has been a long time in the making by the list of weapons. The AR-15 platform has been a boogeyman of gun control advocates for decades internationally, but another rifle on the list demonstrates how long this ban has been coming. The Ruger Mini-14 has been in the sights of Canadian gun-control activists for years, ever since one was used by the Polytechnique shooter in 1989. Additionally, don’t forget that Justin Trudeau is on video saying that registration will never lead to people taking your guns. As is now being demonstrated (yet again), registration will always lead to the government coming to take your guns.
The intricacies of Canadian firearm laws are too much to summarize here but needless to say, if anything, this most recent shooting demonstrates that gun control does nothing to stop bad people. The shooter was not a licensed firearm owner and had no legal guns. Despite this, he managed to acquire several firearms illegally and subsequently acquired another from a police officer he murdered. Canada’s licensing, background checks, magazine capacity limits, categorization of certain firearms as “restricted” all did nothing to stop an evil man who wanted to kill innocent people. Unlike Trudeau and other politicians who stand on the graves of shooting victims as though they were soapboxes from which to preach, I don’t wish to use tragedy as a means of scoring political “points.” But, research has shown that public mass shootings are far less deadly when citizens can carry firearms, and I not only think it is terrible that these victims were denied the dignity of being able to adequately protect themselves, but that more might be alive today if the Canadian government had respected their rights.
