New York Thumbs Its Nose At Recent Supreme Court Ruling On Guns

Daily Caller Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling late last month that New York’s 110-year-old concealed carry law was unconstitutional, the Empire State’s Democrat-controlled legislature and left-wing accidental governor, Kathy Hochul, wasted no time reaffirming that they will go to any lengths to prevent its citizens from lawfully carrying firearms outside the home for personal protection. The new law, signed over the weekend by Hochul, almost certainly will ultimately be thrown out by the federal courts. However, the state’s lawmakers know that such a process likely will take many months if not years to be finally decided, and that for at least that period of time, they will be free to continue denying citizens the right to protect themselves in public. The immediate impetus for New York’s latest anti-gun maneuver was the Supreme Court’s 6-3 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, issued June 23. As recited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority opinion, the prior law, known commonly as the “Sullivan Act,” was constitutionally defective because it placed far too much discretion in the hands of local state officials to arbitrarily deny an applicant a concealed carry permit unless he or she convinced them that they had a unique, “proper cause” to carry a concealed firearm outside their home. For more than a century, this provision worked to prevent all but a very select few New Yorkers from carrying a gun to protect themselves in public (open carry is not permitted in the state, so concealed carry is the only alternative). In signing the new and highly restrictive legislation over the Independence Day...

New York Gun Case Kickstarts New Battle for Gun Rights

Townhall Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen was a historic moment for gun rights in America. Lest Second Amendment advocates engage in a lengthy celebration, however, they had best prepare for more pitched battles at the state and local levels, where firearms opponents will fiercely defend their turf. An individual right to possess a firearm was – finally – recognized by the Supreme Court in its 2008 Hellerdecision, and extended to all the states two years later in McDonald. Extending that fundamental natural right to self-preservation outside one’s home, which is the essence of last week’s ruling, serves also as a welcome update to the Court’s almost plodding effort to reclaim gun rights from decades of liberal encroachment.  Nevertheless, the decision, important as it is, merely shifts the theater of operations from the national to the state and local levels where Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in Bruen, excellent in form and substance, in effect ushers in a new phase of Leftist scheming on gun control. Like Heller, Bruen is pivotal in impact, but limited in scope. In a concurring opinion supplementing Thomas’ six-member majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh (joined by Chief Justice Roberts), stressed that the ruling would not necessarily limit the ability of states to establish requirements for concealed carry – only that they cannot arbitrarily deny the right to carry. As with Heller, in the uncertainty created by Kavanaugh’s opinion, we now will be forced to contend with myriad regulatory tricks by local and state governments to undermine this latest ruling. Immediately after Heller, for example, District of Columbia officials went to work finding loopholes around the “individual right” to keep and...

Did Republicans Who Voted For The Gun Control Bill Actually Read It?

Daily Caller It is now the law of the land, signed last Saturday by President Biden – the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Hidden deep within one of its most controversial provisions, dealing with Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), more commonly known as “Red Flag Laws,” is language that provides a clever way for judges to ignore the “constitutional rights” that purport to guard against abusing these problematic provisions. The bill itself – S.2938 – is 81 pages long; somewhat short by today’s standards, when bills running to hundreds of pages are not uncommon. It is not until a reader is well into the text of the bill that the “Firearms” provisions are laid out in any detail, and this is where the real problem becomes clear – clear, that is, if you read carefully the provisions regarding ERPOs. As is standard operating procedure for federal legislation, S.2938 does not directly mandate that states or local governments implement red flag laws. It does so by offering states money to do the federal government’s bidding. Uncle Sam knows that state and local governments are always eager to receive federal largesse, even with the inevitable strings attached. In this instance, the “bipartisan” legislation (14 House Republicans joined with 15 of their colleagues in the Senate) provides that “Byrne” grants, which have been a vehicle to shovel money to states for criminal justice programs since 1988, can be used to establish “extreme risk protection order programs.” This authorization is linked directly to a list of “due process rights” that attach to such grants. This laudable language is expansive, and warns that no such program can...

FTC and Antitrust Lawyers Targeting America’s Business Sector

RealClear Politics From dialysis to chickens, the U.S. Department of Justice and its regulatory compatriot, the Federal Trade Commission, are flexing Uncle Sam’s antitrust muscles, notwithstanding strong headwinds from skeptical judges and juries. As the United States Chamber of Commerce recently warned in a brief filed with the courts, “Allowing [DOJ] to retroactively criminalize behavior strikes at the heart of the ordered liberty guaranteed to all Americans.” The work of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division receives far less public attention than its bigger brother, the Criminal Division, and the 93 U.S. attorneys who prosecute the vast majority of cases brought each year against individual and corporate defendants. Still, the broad reach of modern federal antitrust laws, dating to the early 20th century (the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1909 and the Clayton Act five years later), can strike fear into the hearts of major corporations and their executives, who can be targeted for either civil or criminal prosecution, with hefty fines possible in either context. While far smaller, the FTC can employ its regulatory reach in tandem with the Antitrust Division to boost policy initiatives favored by an administration intent on punishing the business sector. In this regard, the Biden administration has been particularly aggressive. Fortunately for the free market, the results of this push have been less than impressive. However, recent actions by both the FTC and the Antitrust Division clearly signal this administration’s intent to continue using both its civil and criminal powers to attack the business sector. In a highly unusual if not unprecedented move, the head of the Antitrust Division, Jonathan Kanter, declared that its lawyers would try...

Progressives Are Cancelling Themselves

Townhall This month’s public bruhaha among Washington Post writers, stemming from a colleague’s retweet of a banal joke, was a sight to behold. One of the most prominent newspapers in the nation became a national headline itself, as “professional” reporters jumped to social media to air dirty laundry and call each other names. Where were the adults in the room? Where indeed. The dust-up illustrates the progressive playbook. First, take any perceived slight and assume the evilest intent. Then claim it represents some fantastical hyperbole of doom “if not addressed.” Every incident becomes an outrage campaign that makes the participants, who seem perpetually dour and unhappy, insufferable as individuals and ruinously disruptive as employees. This most recent Washington Post drama was unusual only in how public it became, but it is far from unique in its suffering from a plague of progressive employees whose “woke” zealotry bleeds across the workplace. The “cancel culture” mentality leveraged by progressives against their enemies, including those from its own ranks, has become a paralyzing maelstrom within organizations that employ them.  As one recently resigned executive director of a Leftist organization told The Intercept — “So much energy has been devoted to the internal strife and internal bull____ that it’s had a real impact on the ability for groups to deliver .  .  .  I was spending 90 to 95 percent of my time on internal strife.” The Intercept paints a picture of what you might imagine if the same people pushing Cancel Culture were all put into a room and then expected to come up with solutions for cultural issues. Navigating a minefield wearing a blindfold would be easier –...