DOJ Makes Concerning Statement on SCOTUS Gun Rights Decision


The Supreme Court handed gun rights a major victory on Thursday. The Court ruled that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow an individual to carry a gun for self-defense. It also ruled that the New York law that required a “proper cause to obtain a concealed firearm license” was unconstitutional.

Joe Cunningham, my colleague, reported on the bizarre reactions of the peanut gallery which included Keith Olbermann (ex-acting U.S. Attorney). Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and Solicitor General Neal Katyal. Bharara stated that “SCOTUS did not read the room or the Constitution correctly”. This is funny and possibly telling because he doesn’t seem to understand that the Court shouldn’t be reading the room but deciding purely on what the Constitution says.

However, the Democrats’ reaction to the election was both alarming and delusional.

NY Governor Kathy Hochul didn’t like the decision. She stated that they would continue to fight for more restrictions, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision. Hochul stated that she would be willing to return to “muskets” if the Court wants to reconsider the Constitution’s original meaning. This revealed how extreme Hochul is and how ignorant she is about the law.

Okay, she must give up her phone, microphone, and Botox. She could be in serious trouble. They are pushing a false narrative as if the Founders didn’t know about harmful weapons.

Hochul continues to make a false claim about speech restrictions that Joe Biden frequently makes. “You can’t shout fire in a packed theater.”

“Shocking. It is shocking to learn that reasonable restrictions have been taken away from us. Speech can be restricted. It’s not allowed to yell fire in a packed theater. But, there are no restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

Despite the fact that Democrats try to use it as a justification for their anti-constitutional tendencies, there is no such restriction. We have already explained that this expression comes from the Latin dictum, which means that it is not binding as a precedent in law. It didn’t have the force of law. People who are ignorantly trying to take your rights away will say it. It is disturbing that she doesn’t know this or doesn’t care about it, even though she holds a legal degree.

Joe Biden’s reaction was next. He doesn’t say anywhere in his reaction that he accepts this decision, despite not liking it. This seems to be his attempt to throw that norm out the window. It sounds as if he is calling for protesters to take action against this decision.

Biden stated, “I am deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision. … I urge Americans to speak out on #GunSafety. “Lives are at stake.”

The DOJ also released a concern statement. They did not say that they would uphold their decision, but they said they “disagree”.

The DOJ is free to disagree. It’s meant to be an objective entity that enforces the law. They are not allowed to make political comments. They are making a comment on this. Are they saying that they won’t enforce or comply with the decision?

Jennifer Van Laar mentioned in her tweet that the Senate is now considering a proposal that would see the states enact red flag laws. The DOJ, however, doesn’t care about protecting your rights. They make this statement. Given this, however, is the Senate’s red flag legislation even possible to survive the decision, or will it pre-emptively rip their legs?

These Democratic reactions are alarming, especially after the Democratic responses to the pending abortion case. Talking about throwing out norms is absurd. They will accept the decisions. Will they enforce them?