Since the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Democrats have crouched in their lairs or stopped over cauldrons brewing up some response. We must disarm the people, they say, so given that decision, what should we do?
Ignore the decision. Deny the right to self-defense or the Constitutional Amendment enumerated to keep the government’s hands off it—business as usual.
The product of their mulling and stewing is the private building consent rule. Legislators would use any leverage found from prohibiting firearms in places like Hospitals, transportation hubs, schools, and government buildings and restrict more public places. Any public places which was an infringement too far. A District Court has stomped on the idea and left it a mess.
“The biggest win was stopping the ‘private building consent rule,’” which declares all private property that is open to the public to be a prohibited place — unless the property owner expressly allows individuals to enter the premises with a firearm.
“These private building consent restrictions were cooked up by anti-Second Amendment advocates to effectively nullify the Bruen decision. They are the heart of the states’ response to Bruen. And courts are having nothing to do with them. Today’s ruling was the fourth on enjoining these private consent rules from taking effect,”
Much like the debate over may issue and shall issue, progressive states or their left-leaning political subdivisions throw everything at the wall and hope some of it sticks. From there, they then grow their infringement. Trying to make any list of “public spaces” a gun-free zone would make legal carry cumbersome to impossible, which is the same thing as an effective ban.
In a surprise ruling, a Maryland court and an Obama-appointed judge have made it clear that this doesn’t work.
[District Court Judge George L.] Russell wrote that “The Second Amendment ‘presumptively guarantees’ citizens the right to carry arms ‘in public for self-defense” and that in his opinion, under the proposed law the citizens suing the government “have suffered an injury in fact.”
“State Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs’ injury — it is not merely the inability to carry in privately-owned buildings,” he wrote.
“Rather, their injury is the threat of prosecution for carrying firearms in places that, under prevailing law, they have previously had the presumptive right to do so absent express prohibition by the property owner,” Russell wrote.
One small step for natural rights, one giant leap for… similar legislation to appear as states return to doing whatever they think of as the people’s business. That’s the thing about Democrats: they don’t stop until your rights are dead!
Here in New Hampshire, where we’ve had recent success protecting the natural right to self-defense from gun grabbers (by rolling back infringements), we should expect to see a few bills that lean in this direction despite the ruling.
It’s annoying, but Republicans could learn something from it.
HT | Tactical Sh!t
