Gun Control ‘Experts’ Panic, Supreme Court Hears 2A Case

As the Supreme Court considers the case challenging New York’s extremist gun permit law, gun control proponents are predicting a downfall of civilization if the court affirms the right to bear arms. iStock-1055138108

U.S.A.-( As the Supreme Court of the United States begins the long and no doubt intense deliberations on the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, gun control proponents are in something of a panic, attempting to portray this case and a potential outcome favoring rights over restrictions as the end of civilization as we know it.

Writing at the New York Daily News, Shannon Watts—founder of the Moms Demand Action gun prohibition lobbying group now a subsidiary of anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety—declares her brand of “gun safety” to be in jeopardy. She breathlessly describes this case as “the latest chapter in the gun lobby’s worn-out playbook of framing every single gun safety law as a constitutional issue, even though the Constitution itself, more than 200 years of history, and courts across the country have already made clear that the government has the right to regulate guns in public spaces to protect people’s safety.”

Watts knows only as much about genuine gun safety as a liberal Hollywood actor, and possibly less.

Almost simultaneously, Adam Winkler writes at the New York Times, “The gun safety movement finds itself on the precipice of disaster.”

Throughout his Op-ed, Winkler repeatedly alludes to a “gun safety movement” and at one spot, calls it the “gun safety reform movement” and he also refers to “gun safety advocates.” Winkler has appeared at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, where he was in a room filled with genuine gun safety advocates; people who own firearms and, unlike a certain movie star, they haven’t fatally shot anybody because they took someone else’s word the gun was unloaded.

Recently, Shannon Lee—sister of the late actor Brandon Lee, who was accidentally killed on a movie set inn 1993—told a reporter, “I think that mandatory gun safety training (should be required) for the actor so that they can check the guns themselves and know how to use them appropriately.” It is a reasonable suggestion from someone who lost a sibling to a terrible, and preventable, accident. Where would someone go for such training? It’s not the kind of instruction offered by anyone in the gun prohibition movement.

  • Question: Who has more certified firearms instructors, the National Rifle Association or the Brady Campaign?
  • Question: Where would you send someone for gun safety training, the Gunsite Academy or the Alliance for Gun Responsibility?
  • Question: Which organization originated hunter education courses in 1949, the NRA or the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence?
  • Question: Who might be able to more quickly recite the Four Rules of Gun Safety, a member of Moms Demand Action or a member of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
  • Question: When police arrest a criminal with a stolen handgun, who thinks the criminal bothered with a background check during the process of obtaining the gun?

In her 700-word opinion piece, Watts alleges the NRA, and by extension, every other gun rights organization, “sees this case as a chance to advance their ultimate agenda of guns anywhere for anyone at any time, with no questions asked.”

Such rhetoric is demonstrably false. Gun rights organizations got behind such legislation as “Three Strikes” and “Hard Time for Armed Crime.” Notably, liberals who advocated for gun control laws hardly warmed up to either movement, which both began in Washington State in the early 1990s.

To his credit, Winkler acknowledges in his article, “While assault rifles look menacing, they are responsible for only a fraction of gun deaths in America each year. While these weapons have been used in some of the most notorious massacres, most mass shootings are actually committed with handguns.”

What must be understood here is that proposed gun bans have little or nothing to do with genuine public safety, but rather to provide a “trophy” of sorts to the gun prohibition lobby. This is why such proposals are generically called “trophy legislation,” something anti-gunners can point to and declare, “Look what we accomplished,” when they really haven’t accomplished anything.

It is patently misleading to identify gun prohibition lobbying groups as “gun safety” or “gun reform” organizations. As recently demonstrated on a movie set in New Mexico, “gun safety” advocates really don’t know about gun safety, and because of that, people can get hurt or even killed.

The Supreme Court will not likely hand down a ruling in NYSR&PA v. Bruen until the final days of its session, next June. A ruling striking down New York’s extremist gun control law would not be a “disaster” as suggested by Winkler, but an affirmation that a fundamental right protected by the Constitution requires no demonstration of “need” to be exercised. No citizen should be required to justify his or her exercise of an enumerated right, which is really what the New York case is all about.

If the Supreme Court nullifies such a requirement, it will be a victory for everyone, not just gun owners and right-to-carry advocates. Such a ruling will remind governments everywhere that rights are sacrosanct, they are special, whether the issue is free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, legal representation, remaining silent or the act of keeping and bearing arms.


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *