Law-abiding gun owners are beside themselves over this woke unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling

Photo by Karolina Grabowska from Pexels

The concept of private gun ownership infuriates Democrats as it serves as an impediment to their never-ending authoritarian quest to disarm working class Americans. 

They’ve passed wide-sweeping “gun-control” bills across the nation designed to do just that. 

And now law-abiding gun owners are beside themselves over this woke unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.

Democrats target the Second Amendment

Constitutional experts agree that America’s Founding Fathers were very deliberate when drafting the Second Amendment, making it very concise and blunt.  

Yet, Democrats are determined to find ways around it, or in some cases completely ignore it. 

In Hawaii, for example, the state’s Supreme Court just ruled that citizens must obtain the government’s permission in order to carry a firearm in public. 

In Hawaii v. Wilson, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Wilson, with woke left-wing Judge Todd Eddins claiming that the court rejected Wilson’s constitutional challenges” due to the idea that “conventional interpretive modalities and [Hawaii’s] historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the [Hawaii] Constitution.”

He then addressed the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Bruen v New York, in which the Court ruled in favor of Bruen, declaring that New York’s law requiring applicants for concealed carry permits to provide a reason for their application was unconstitutional. 

Bruen snubs federalism principles,” Eddins added. “Still, the United States Supreme Court does not strip states of all sovereignty to pass traditional police power laws designed to protect people… States retain the authority to require that individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public.” 

Making up the law as they go

These claims directly oppose the United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Bruen v New York.

“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,” Justice Thomas wrote.

“Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps ‘most acute’ in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere,” he added. “Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it… [and] the text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.”

“The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees [the NYSPRA] petitioners… a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense,” Thomas concluded.

Hawaii’s latest ruling, which essentially bars citizens from carrying firearms publically, does nothing to protect Hawaiians. 

Believe it or not, criminals do not tend to follow the law, and many legal experts predict that this ruling only serves to attack law-abiding gun owners. 

The majority of law-abiding gun owners don’t vote for Democrats, and it’s painfully obvious that this is a politically-motivated move specifically targeting Hawaiians who disagree with them.

US Political Daily will keep you updated on any developments to this ongoing story.