Democrat-led states are leading a mass rebellion against last year’s Supreme Court ruling on gun rights, with a slew of new laws designed to test how far they can go in testing the limits of the Second Amendment.
Just days after the high court in June struck down New York’s strict concealed-carry law and ruled that people have a right to have a gun outside their home, the state responded with a new version designed to make sure that right won’t be exercised in a host of “sensitive places.”
New Jersey and California quickly followed.
Other Democrat-dominated states have limited gun sales by imposing age restrictions and waiting periods, mandating specific methods of storage, banning sales of some types of semiautomatic weapons, limiting ammunition magazine capacity and creating new liability for firearms manufacturers.
The laws represent a victory for gun control groups, who were dismayed by Justice Clarence Thomas’ ruling in last year’s Bruen case, where he laid out a new test asking judges to look to history to decide if gun restrictions were constitutional.
“In response to the extreme Bruen decision from the Supreme Court, states across the country have taken action to ensure their citizens’ lives aren’t endangered,” Sean Holihan, state legislative director at Giffords Law Center, told the Washington Times in a statement.
Just about every state with a Democrat-controlled legislature and a Democratic governor has made an attempt in the wake of the high court’s ruling, as well as a new spate of high-profile shootings.
But the states are quickly running into legal roadblocks erected by Justice Thomas’ ruling.
A federal district judge ruled parts of New York’s law, including the sensitive places policy, violate the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has allowed New York’s law to remain in place while the case is appealed.
In Illinois, a federal judge last month issued an injunction against a new law barring sales of so-called “assault weapons” and limiting possession and use among those who already own them.
An appeals court judge has allowed the state law to remain in effect while the case is reviewed.
Alan Gotlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which was one of the plaintiffs in that case, credited last year’s Supreme Court ruling with giving gun-rights new legal tools to battle the new laws.
In the last several weeks his group has sued Washington and California over their new assault weapons bans.
Gun-rights activists have also challenged Minnesota’s ban on those between ages 18 and 21 carrying guns; California’s ban on advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a manner that is “attractive to minors;” and the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns within its public transportation system.
Gun-rights activists are also playing offense, using the Bruen decision to also try to knock down longstanding gun restrictions.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year ruled against a federal law prohibiting the possession of guns by someone facing a court-issued domestic violence protection order.
The 5th Circuit had previously upheld convictions in similar cases, but it said the Bruen decision has forced a rethink and the federal prohibition on suspected domestic abusers cannot withstand the historical scrutiny test.
• Kerry Picket can be reached at kpicket@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.