Kamala Harris whines at Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment decision

0

The US Supreme Court struck down a restrictive New York handgun permitting law on Thursday, delivering a major win for the Second Amendment and gun rights.

Vice President Kamala Harris appeared smug when discussing the ruling. She was pursing her lips together and condescendingly claiming the decision defied common sense and logic.

“We, the president and myself, many of us are deeply concerned and troubled by the Supreme Court’s ruling today. It — it, I believe, defies common sense and the Constitution of the United States,” Harris said.

Harris said she was “deeply concerned and troubled by the Supreme Court’s ruling,” adding, “We can go on down the list about why it, yet again, is on the front pages, so to speak, of the concern of the American people about what we can and what we have a responsibility to do in terms of reasonable gun safety laws”.

Harris also whined about the ruling on Twitter: “Today’s Supreme Court ruling on guns is deeply troubling as it defies commonsense and the Constitution. Lives are at stake”.

“Congress should pass the bipartisan gun safety proposal immediately and continue to do more to protect our communities”, she added.

In a 6-3 ruling, the nation’s highest court struck down New York’s gun-control law that required people to show “proper cause” to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home.

Justice Clarence Thomas said the court is holding “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home”.

In this case, Thomas explains that nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public “with respect to the right to keep and bear arms”.

Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home”.

“A pair of plaintiffs who challenged the law, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, filed their lawsuit after the Empire State rejected their concealed carry applications for insufficiently demonstrating a special need for a permit despite having already passed required background checks for gun licenses for hunting and target practice”, the Washington Examiner reported.

The ruling on Thursday comes as liberals are pushing for gun control measures following tragic shootings in New York and Texas.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case over whether New York’s law violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”.

Justice Samuel Alito suggested New York City citizens should be allowed to carry firearms on the subway late at night, for instance, while Roberts asked New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, “How many muggings take place in the forest?”

Roberts and other conservative justices suggested New York’s law goes too far.

In one instance, Roberts asked whether a person seeking a license to carry a gun in public for self-defense has to show a special need to do so, another question suggesting he supports the Second Amendment.

“The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights”, Roberts said.

“Could a football stadium or a college campus be off-limits? What sort of place do you think they could be excluded from? Any place where alcohol is served?” Roberts asked.

“The New York law the court is reviewing has been in place since 1913 and says that to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense, a person applying for a license has to demonstrate “proper cause”, an actual need to carry the weapon. Applicants who get a license are either issued an unrestricted license, which gives them broad ability to carry a weapon in public, or a restricted license allowing them to carry a gun in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include hunting or target shooting, when traveling for work, or when in backcountry areas”, KTLA reported.

New York argued before the Supreme Court that striking down the restrictive gun law would have “devastating consequences for public safety”.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here