(Republican Insider) – Just last week, the Supreme Court delivered a massive victory for all gun rights advocates across the nation, but especially in New York, deciding that governments do not have the ability to deny residents permission to obtain a concealed carry permit for a weapon simply because they don’t meet a bureaucratic demand for a “just cause” in order to be armed.
This is simply an upholding of the Second Amendment, which clearly states every American citizen possesses the right to have a gun to defend their liberty, life, and property. It’s amazing how this is such a big deal. It’s supposed to be inherent in our nation’s legal system thanks to the Constitution.
But, of course, this decision isn’t going to stop the radical left from attempting to find another way to try and strip folks of the right to carry a concealed weapon. According to WND, officials are not mulling basing their decisions on the factors that make up a person’s ideology.
For example, they might ask if you endorse any kind of “hatred,” which is very vague term that can be twisted to mean anything the left wants it to mean. Or perhaps you hold to specific religious views the powers that be don’t like. Or maybe you’ve expressed anti-government, anti-abortion beliefs.
“It is legal commentator Eugene Volokh who explained at Reason that California officials are working on work-arounds to the recent Supreme Court decision, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” the report stated.
“In that ruling, the justices vetoed the idea that a bureaucrat can demand a license applicant provide the bureaucrat’s version of a good reason, or ‘just cause’ for the license to defend oneself,” the report continued.
The report then added, “Volokh noted the California attorney general immediately released a statement that that state’s demand for ‘good cause’ likely could no longer be used against residents.”
However, the AG’s office has suggested that people who hold to certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified from having a concealed carry permit. Yes, that’s right, they are talking about denying a person’s rights because they believe something they don’t approve of.
It should go without explaining, but this is a horrifically bad idea.
The state already requires those who apply for a permit to be someone of “good moral character.” The problem here, of course, is there’s no way to know who is a good moral person. Not objectively. Applicants would be at the whims of those in charge.
“The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include ‘[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition’ or ‘[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years,'” the report went on to reveal.
The policy over at the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department states, “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.”
The Attorney General’s office then said, “As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And they may search publicly available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character.”
Volokh then made the suggestion that those strategies are likely to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment, “even apart from the Second Amendment.”
“The government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express,” he went on to say.
He then added that folks can’t be denied their rights simply because they “endorse ‘hatred’ (a potentially extraordinarily broad and vague term) and ‘racism’ (a term that, especially in much recent usage, is likewise highly broad and vague).”
Volokh then stated that it doesn’t matter that “some” who adhere to a specific idology “engage in violence.”
“Just as the Free Exercise Clause would bar the government from engaging in religious discrimination in deciding which citizens can do certain things, so the Free Speech Clause bars the government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination,” he noted.
Volokh then explained, “And of course it’s easy to see how, if California were allowed to deny concealed carry licenses to whoever California law enforcement officials believe is ‘racis[t]’ or endorses ‘hatred,’ then some other state could deny such licenses—or lots of other kinds of licenses—to whoever its law enforcement officials believe is anti-government or anti-police or a Muslim extremist or what have you.”
There are other problems Volokh predicted would come up in a scenario like this, which includes a “mere arrest history” that doesn’t actually document illegal conduct, the status of a person’s “fiscal responsibility” or potentially guilt for small, minor infractions of the law.
A column that was published at HotAir goes in depth to reveal just how extreme the California strategy could end up becoming.
“This is an even more critical distinction to make in an era where the government is busy redefining words and appointing people to decide what is or isn’t ‘misinformation.’ If you spoke out against the violence on display during the BLM riots, you’ve already been defined as a ‘racist.’ Based on that alone, the California AG could determine that you are of insufficiently good moral character to be approved for a permit. If you applauded the overturning of Roe v Wade you are no doubt already on a list of ‘haters’ of some sort so you can be similarly denied,” the piece said.
Copyright 2022. RepublicanInsider.org