In the recent decision of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn v Bruen 142 S. CT. 2111, the Supreme Court very clearly held that the Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizens, even those in New Hampshire, to “armed self-defense.”
The right to armed self-defense applies anywhere and everywhere -unless the state can prove that the Historical record reflects a national tradition of gun restriction.
In announcing its decision, the Court explained: “We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects the conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
Analytically, there are three points:
1. The Second Amendment provides that anyone and everyone is entitled, as a matter of highest Constitutional rights, to “armed self-defense”; everyone has an unfettered right to “armed self-defense” anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
2.If the State wants to regulate this right of “armed self-defense, it can do so in very limited ways subject to the following: the burden of proof is on the state to prove that a regulation limiting “armed self-defense” is constitutionally approved.
3. Such regulation is only constitutionally approved if the state shows that there is a national tradition dating back to the time the Constitution was written consistent with the regulation the state seeks to approve.
With regard to item 3, the Supreme Court referred to “sensitive places” which have had long-standing regulations/limitations on the Second Amendment. “Sensitive places” are places where the USA has traditionally limited guns (for example, court houses and prisons). However, the Supreme Court emphasized- it is unconstitutional for a town or city to declare an area to be “sensitive” just because of some modern-day notion of gun safety. A sensitive area is only sensitive if it can be shown to be subject to a historical tradition of gun regulation. In addition, “Sensitive Area” must be reflected in how the Government treats the so-called “sensitive area.” Consider this commentary approved by the Supreme Court:
“Passing a statute declaring some place to be a “gun free zone” does nothing to deter criminals from entering with guns and attacking the people inside. In contrast, when a building such as a courthouse, is protected by metal detectors and guards, the government shows the seriousness of the government’s belief that the buildings sensitive…Conversely, when the government provides no security at all-such as in a post office or its parking lot-the government’s behavior shows that the location is probably not sensitive….”
Tell me: why isn’t the State of New Hampshire enforcing this law? Why are there so many towns and cities that have wholesale ignored this decision and routinely continue to ban guns in a variety of places despite the clear language in the Court’s decision?
I heard one town official state, “We are like a business. And, of course, any business can ban guns on its own property.”
How about NO AND HELL NO.
In Koons v Platkin, the Federal court in New Jersey answered this question:
“While it is certainly true that the government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor, to maintain possession and prosecute trespassers….the State is not exempt from recognizing the protections afforded to individuals by the Constitution simply because it acts on Government property…”
In a separate case, Wolford v Lopez, a Hawaii Federal court stated;
“Whether the Government acted as a proprietor …has no place…under BRUEN.
Applying the Supreme Court analysis, various Federal Courts have held unconstitutional “gun-free zones” in the following cases :
1. Hospitals
2. Public Transportation
3. Places that serve liquor
4. Parks and playgrounds
5. Libraries
6. Places of worship
7. Financial institutions
In New Hampshire, many, many “gun-free zones” have been declared without regard to the “Supreme Court’s analysis. One common “gun-free Zone” is “Town Property.”
Consider the following from the town of Hollis: Several years ago, well before Bruen, the town of Hollis held an election on a warrant article banning guns from all town property. Such property includes town hall, but it also includes very large tracts of raw land, including conservation land.
What Constitutional legal theory did they rely upon to ban Guns? Several residents complained that the noise of guns engaged in target practice was a bother to them, and they wanted all guns removed from huge tracts of land the town “owns.”
Under Bruen, the Gun ban is clearly unconstitutional. No place does the Second Amendment state that guns can be banned because local residents don’t want to hear the noise guns make when folks are target practicing. Moreover, in terms of “historical tradition,” the land in question has been open for gun use-including target practice, for over 200 years. Revolutionary War soldiers practiced their aim prior to going off to war. New Hampshire sharpshooters (a rather famous group whose heroism helped win the battle of Gettysburg) practiced on the townland during the Civil War.
Finally, in no universe I know is the raw, open land to be considered “sensitive,” as the Supreme Court defined that term. Everyone has access to it. There are no gates with metal detectors or armed guards. Simply put, the Town of Hollis is engaged in an illegal act, an Unconstitutional act, by designating Town land as being exempt from the Second Amendment.
Sadly, the town of Hollis does not seem to care. I checked—no hearing on the subject. No inquiry. No effort of any kind to follow the Supreme Court decision in Bruen. I did see one guy in town who wore a t-shirt that said, “Pack the Court. Until then, ignore them.”
Seems like he speaks for Hollis. And indeed, all the other towns and cities in New Hampshire that refuse to enforce the Bruen decision.
Good job, folks. Makes total sense.
Our society is folding like a $1.99 lawn chair, so why not just ignore the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and anything else you don’t like?
