When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released its decision last year in the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen case, anti-gun extremist organizations had a collective conniption fit. It was similar to the conniption fit they had when SCOTUS released its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010.
Granted, some of the groups that freaked out in 2008/2010 no longer exist or have changed their names and some of the groups that freaked out in 2022 were not yet invented in 2008/2010. But many of the parts of these organizations are so interchangeable that the gun-ban lobby appears to be just an amorphous collective with a hive mind approach to attacking the Second Amendment.
Honestly, one group is generally indistinguishable from another.
So, when the Bruen decision came down, it was not too surprising that the response from the various entities that make up the gun-ban movement were so eerily similar; especially as it relates to claims that the SCOTUS decision was not supported by the general public.
At this point, it is important to remind people that the Bruen decision had many facets to it, but probably the most basic takeaway from it was that it challenged the restrictive New York law regulating the carrying of firearms for personal protection when outside one’s home. SCOTUS recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, the right to bear arms extends outside the home, and the New York law was an unconstitutional infringement on that right.
In other words, law-abiding citizens have a right to carry guns in public for personal protection.
But that’s not what the anti-gun industrial complex wants people to believe, so they mounted a collective assault on the decision.
A release from Everytown, the organization funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, proclaimed, “Today’s ruling is … out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans….”
The statement out of Giffords lamented, “This extreme ruling by the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority…[is] thwarting the will of the people….”
One of the oldest anti-gun organizations, which currently goes by the name Brady after several rebrands from its origin in the 1970s as the National Council to Control Handguns, came out with, “The majority opinion has demonstrated that they do not care about what the majority of Americans want and support.”
And to emphasize how in lockstep these groups are when it comes to their reaction to the Bruen ruling, they went ahead an issued a joint statement that alleged, “…the Court has proven how out of step it is with the American people.”
The obvious narrative these groups wanted to promote was that the general public is opposed to law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for personal protection, and that SCOTUS rulings should give more weight to opinion polls than the Constitution.
The notion that SCOTUS make rulings based on what’s popular is without any merit. In fact, the Court has a long history of handing down rulings that, at the time, were likely unpopular with majorities of Americans. But is that even the case with Bruen?
A recent poll conducted by Marquette Law School sought to determine how the American public feels about the job SCOTUS is doing, and while results indicate more disapproved than approved of the overall job being done, it certainly was not because of the Bruen ruling.
The poll asked many questions, including whether or not people favored or opposed specific decisions handed down. One decision included in the poll was Bruen, and the poll found that 67% favored the ruling, while only 33% opposed it.
So much for being “out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans” or “thwarting the will of the people.” A majority of people may question SCOTUS in general, but not when it comes to the Bruen decision.
Anti-gun extremists are not just wrong about the constitutionality of their “gun control” agenda, but they also are wrong about the general public’s support of their goal of disarming law-abiding Americans and keeping them from being able to defend themselves while away from home.
And you can quote us on that.