The Ongoing Fights After Bruen

by
posted on December 2, 2024
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Mass. Gov. Maura Healey, N.Y. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom
(Gregorio Borgia/AP)

The U.S. Supreme Court gave us a resounding victory for freedom when it decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. The decision affirmed that our Second Amendment rights do not cease to exist at our front doors. It also voided numerous unconstitutional policies that were in place before the ruling; nevertheless, opponents of our Second Amendment-protected freedom have not given up.

“The U.S. Supreme Court declared New York’s ‘good-cause’ requirement for the right to bear arms outside the home unconstitutional, but the struggle for freedom is hardly over,” wrote Stephen Halbrook, a constitutional attorney, for America’s 1st Freedom at the time.

Halbrook’s words were, indeed, prophetic, as the actions by anti-gun politicians since Bruen have been desperate, unconstitutional and rebellious toward the high court.

Last July in Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed legislation that the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) has said is “one of the most-extreme gun-control bills in the country.” Healey then used an “emergency preamble” to force it into effect without any input from citizens of the Bay State.

“With the swipe of a pen, Governor Healey has shamelessly circumvented Massachusetts’ political process and expedited the effective date of her radical gun-control law in the Commonwealth. This extreme law will not go unchecked, and the NRA will be launching a challenge to restore the rights guaranteed to Bay Staters by the U.S. Constitution,” said Randy Kozuch, executive director of NRA-ILA.

At the start of the year, the Hawaii State Supreme Court thumbed its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court by claiming the “Spirit of Aloha” is a legal rationale that trumps the high court.

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities,” said the Hawaii State Supreme Court decision. “Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” says the decision. “We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

The Hawaiian court went on to argue that the Bruen precedent is somehow outdated—despite being decided in 2022. 

Meanwhile in California, lawmakers passed new legislation that would have, among other things, banned Californians—even those with hard-to-obtain concealed-carry permits—from carrying concealed firearms in more than two dozen places, such as churches, banks, hospitals, and on public transportation. All of this stands in direct opposition to Bruen; as a result, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney called it “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

After a lot of legal wrangling, the injunction blocking the legislation from going into effect was put back in place. But the legal battles are hardly over; indeed, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has openly floated the idea of adding a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that would effectively gut the Second Amendment.

Before California acted, New York openly defied the Bruen decision by passing, among many other infringements, “sensitive-place” restrictions that ban citizens from lawfully carrying concealed in much of the state.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas foresaw this when authoring the opinion in Bruen: “Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

Nevertheless, this is what New York and a handful of other states effectively did. Legislators in New Jersey, Illinois and several other states have also passed expansive sensitive-place restrictions on this constitutional right. In each, the NRA has been ready to challenge them and make sure that your Second Amendment rights are protected.

So, as we reach the end of 2024, it is clear that the struggle for our freedom is continuing.

Latest

Holiday Gift Guide

The Trade Association for the Firearms Industry is Calling Out JPMorganChase

The CEO of JPMorganChase, Jamie Dimon, went on Fox News and claimed that JPMorganChase does not debank individuals, associations or corporations for ideological reasons. But the NSSF points out that Dimon has said different things before.

Gun Review | Rost Martin RM1C

I would like to introduce you to the Rost Martin RM1C—and yes, anyone familiar with the Glock 19 will immediately see its lineage. I nevertheless became intrigued by this gun, as I believe you might, thanks to some of its special features—and thanks to its price tag.

The NRA is Still Fighting for Our First Amendment Freedoms

Though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the NRA's argument in NRA v. Vullo, the decision sent the case back to a lower court, which ruled the offending government official had "qualified immunity." As a result, this case is ongoing.

Policing Should Not Be A Political Issue

Crime is a complicated topic, but there is an extremely simple rule that must be observed before one can begin to fight it effectively: One must genuinely wish to deal with the problem. Without such an elementary ambition, no amount of legislation, activity, taxpayer money or speechmaking will make the slightest bit of difference.

Gun-Control Group Inadvertently Admits Armed Citizens are Effective

The gun-control group Everytown inadvertently admitted that lawfully armed citizens stop a lot of crimes in America.



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.