Let's make of the SCOTUS Bruen ruling what it is not what it isn't

In the case of the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which ruled that New York’s gun licensing law was unconstitutional, let’s make of that ruling what it is, not what it isn’t.  

For a quick primer, for decades New York has required gun owners to get a license to own and carry firearms.  That in itself isn’t the problem.  The problem is that the law required the applicant to prove “proper cause exists” in order to get a license to “have and carry” a firearm outside the home.  Even then, if the applicant successfully proved proper cause then the state “may issue” a permit.  This was the crux of the issue, as this infringes on the 14th Amendment protections on due process.  

Twice before the Court has ruled that “may issue” firearms permit laws are unconstitutional.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, and in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court found that the 14th Amendment presumptively protects an individual’s enumerated right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.  

The bottom line in this case is that such laws must be written on a “shall issue” basis.  That is, if the State cannot prove that an applicant’s personal conduct precludes that individual from possessing and carrying a firearm then the state shall issue a firearms license, and shall do so in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost.  

New York’s law requiring an individual to prove “proper cause”, and even then stating the state “may issue” the requested license was blatantly unconstitutional, as it placed the burden of proof on the applicant to show the ability to keep and bear arms rather than on the state to prove otherwise, and put the final decision in the hands of bureaucrats.  

The ruling still permits New York to require a license to have and carry a firearm, but requires the state to issue those licenses on a “shall issue” basis rather than a “may issue” basis.  That’s it.  Period.  The ruling will not allow people to carry whatever they wish whenever they wish wherever they wish.  The law will not “flood the streets with guns”.  Allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms will not cause the streets to run red with blood.  In the past, every time detractors of gun legislation, on both sides of the issue, have claimed that proposed changes to gun laws will “cause the streets to run red with blood” they have been wrong, and they’re wrong in this case as well.  

The ruling in Bruen does not mean that states cannot regulate firearms.  The ruling in Bruen, and likewise in Heller, and in McDonald, means that when states regulate firearms they must do so in accordance with 14th Amendment protections on due process.  The state can still require licenses to have and carry firearms.  The state can still prohibit the carry of firearms in certain areas, such as court houses, government offices, schools, and mass transit.  Property owners can still prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises, and the state can still make violating those prohibitions a crime.  

But these rulings mean more than that.  These rulings have broader applications than just gun rights.  The rulings in McDonald, Heller, and Bruen are precedents that regulations on any enumerated right shall comply with the protections on due process in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  Whether you like the decision or not, it protects your rights to due process.  That’s what the Bruen decision is. 

My Campaign Speech

 For sometime now I have been registered as a Republican.  I registered myself this way because Florida is a gerrymandered Republican safe zone, and has been for 22 years, so voting in the Republican primary is the only real way I can have a say in my state government.  Lately that Republican registration has felt something like swimming in a cesspool.  If I was going to run as a Republican candidate then this would be my campaign speech.  

My fellow Republicans.  

We must return our party to its roots.  For quite some time now our party has drifted away from those roots.  In the past few years our party has been taken over by an extremist wing who do not represent the fundamentals of the Republican Party, or the best interests of the American People. 

Historically, the roots of the Republican Party do not include the unquestioned rule of one man.  The officials we elect to legislative office are intended to provide a check and balance on the power of the executive, not to mindlessly rubber-stamp his every desire.  That is one of the roots to which we must return.  

But there is much more to the historical Republican Party roots.  

-Reasonable taxation.  We must not bankrupt the people who drive our economy, either through taxing the rich to death or by shifting the burden of taxation to the middle class and the poor, but at the same time we must generate enough revenue to support essential government services.  

-Fiscal responsibility.  We should not spend more than we bring in, unless that spending is absolutely needed and well planned to benefit the American People.  At the same time, when spending money would bring more benefit than pinching pennies then money should be spent to the best advantage of The People.

-Local rule.  The best government is that which is closest to The People, so the ability of cities, counties, and states to rule themselves as they best see fit should be paramount, except where higher government preemption is absolutely necessary. 

-Personal autonomy.  Freedom from government interference in The People's management of their own affairs is protected in the Constitution, and should not be interfered with unless absolutely necessary. This extends to People's freedom in reproductive matters, as well as what drugs People choose to take. 

-Balanced immigration policy: "Kick them all out" is not practical, nor is "let them all in".  We must take a balanced approach which will best benefit the United States, and which will at the same time uphold both the values of the United States and the Republican Party.  We are a nation of immigrants and children of immigrants, and we should keep that firmly in mind. 

-Reasonable gun control: Banning outright certain classes of firearms is not reasonable, nor is completely unrestricted gun rights.  We must strike a balance which both protects the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and at the same time keeps arms out of the hands of those who should not have them.  Gun control policy should be data driven, not based on the emotions of either side of the issue.  

-Healthcare for everyone: Having a large number of sick, desperate poor people is not good for America.  We must provide for the healthcare coverage of the poor people in America without inconveniencing those fortunate enough to afford healthcare insurance.  

-Conservation of our environment and our wild lands: We must never forget that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were signed into law by a Republican president, after passing through congress with bipartisan support.   The majority of our National Parks were signed into law by Republican presidents, starting with Abraham Lincoln, and continued to great effect by Theodore Roosevelt, among many others.  Conservation is a conservative principle! 

-Above all, my fellow Republicans, we must take back our party from our most extreme wing, who would have us tip over into Fascism in the name of "law and order", and give us over to the autocratic rule of a charismatic, narcisistic firebrand.  That kind of extremism is anti-Republican, anti-democratic, anti-conservative, and anti-American.  

There are many things we must do in order to take our party back, and to bring our country back.  We must start by rejecting the politicians who call on us to abandon the foundations of our party and our country.  

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.