Review Of More Than 700 Years Of American Gun Rights History Reveals That The Issue Of Gun Control Is Unjust

5 min readJun 14, 2021

One of the more interesting cases to come out of New York on gun law was ruled in last week. This case mark the first time that the courts have taken a stand on gun control laws. The court has issued a ruling that will most likely be challenged in court by the NRA. The court has found that the police have exceeded their authority when they pulled gun permits from people without individualized suspicion. The court also stated that it would consider a previous lower court decision against the law as precedent in its ruling against the New York gun law.

The New York law has been found to be illegal because it requires individuals who wish to purchase guns to undergo an instant criminal background check before they can buy one. The decision in this case marks the first step toward challenging the entire gun control legislation in New York. The previous ruling limited the right of the individual to own firearms based on a subjective reason test, but left the door wide open for the police to stop individuals on the suspicion that they have committed a crime. In the past, the police could only pull a person’s gun permit after pulling him over on an unrelated basis. The ruling found that the ban on individual gun possession violates the rights to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The ruling follows mass shootings in recent weeks in Colorado, Louisiana, Oregon, California and Wisconsin. In each of these instances, the victims were lawfully exercising their right to self-defense. Justices said that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining its prohibition against firearm use by minors.

In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the question was, “does the Second Amendment apply to lawful self-defense”? The Supreme Court did not answer the question. There is a difference between the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and the right to use a weapon in furthering a crime. In the wake of Las Vegas, there were eight states that limit who has the right to carry guns.

This decision marks a major win for the San Francisco law enforcement officials and the California attorney general. California already had a law on the books allowing citizens to carry a gun without a license. The appeals court vacated that provision, saying that it amounted to an illegal search and seizure. The three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected the argument that the provision went too far in promoting an unlawful purpose.

This is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Utah, Wisconsin, California, and Maryland are the only eight states that allow concealed weapons. The panel in San Francisco said that the question of the constitutionality of the San Francisco gun permit law should be left for the lower state courts.

A decision in this case could have broad implications for the rest of the country. Many lower-court decisions will follow in the wake of high-profile shootings in recent weeks in Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin. In the aftermath of Oregon’s deadly shooting, the media focused in on the shooter, rather than the fact that he had obtained a firearm despite a background check ban that had been previously in place. After the Las Vegas shooting, the media also followed the path of the shooter, rather than focusing on the fact that he had a gun prohibited in the state.

This is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. The lower-court decision that was upholding the new York law was not based on a rational reason for doing so. Rather, the lower court found that the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun, even if it causes harm or death to other people. The Supreme Court has never ruled that a constitution protects an individual right to possess a gun.

If the Court does not hear an appeal to expand gun rights in the United States, it will likely uphold the lower court ruling. The majority of lower court judges thought that the Second Amendment protected the right to own guns for self-defense. They cited both history and modern day statistics about the prevalence of gun violence, including domestic abuse and gang activity. The conservative majority did not listen to any of this evidence. The Court is just saying that the Second Amendment is worded in a way that was intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Because no rational person could possibly see any reason that the Second Amendment should limit a person’s right to protect themselves and their family, the case marks a major step toward expanding gun rights.

The review of more than 700 years of American legal history reveals that the mere idea of gun control is not legitimate. The left wants to ban all guns. The right wants to regulate all guns. It is the right of any responsible citizen to have a gun for protection. Period. The left wants no gun, period.

Learn More:
Gun Lawsuits Organization
18021 Kingsland Blvd
Houston, TX 77094
866–831–9148

Review Of More Than 700 Years Of American Gun Rights History Reveals That The Issue Of Gun Control Is Unjust

Written by Gun Lawsuits Organization