Biden Seeks To Nullify The Second Amendment

by
posted on December 6, 2021
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
nulify.jpg

On September 21, the Biden Administration filed an amicus brief in the pending U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, supporting New York’s draconian and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear firearms in public for self-defense.

New York’s law presumptively denies the right to bear arms for self-defense unless a license applicant can demonstrate a special need for self-protection that distinguishes the person from the general population.

In practice, this means the rich and well-connected can get unrestricted carry licenses but ordinary people cannot, even if they actually face a greater risk of being violently victimized while going about their daily lives in public. The law effectively nullifies for most New Yorkers what SCOTUS has already characterized as “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

And this is absolutely fine for the Biden Administration, at least when it comes to the Second Amendment.

After all, Biden’s own son Hunter has the manifest privilege of violating with impunity various federal gun-control laws the government brief insists are so necessary to protect public safety.

The government’s brief, filed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice, also gives complete vindication to the NRA’s opposition to now Attorney General Merrick Garland’s nomination to SCOTUS in 2016, when he was a federal appellate judge. Anti-gun pundits had mocked that opposition at the time, falsely claiming there was no legal basis for it, even though Garland had voted to rehear a case that had ruled an outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment. Yet, the only plausible reason to support such a “do-over” was that the court had come to the wrong conclusion. Why repeat something
already done correctly?

Now, as AG, Garland is advocating that SCOTUS effectively remove the right to “bear arms” from the U.S. Constitution.

(For more details on the Biden Administration brief, go to nraila.org/articles/20210927/biden-administration-asks-the-us-supreme-court-to-judicially-nullify-the-right-to-bear-arms)

Latest

PLCAA in marble
PLCAA in marble

Cynical Strategies To Subvert The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act

Since President George W. Bush signed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law on Oct. 26, 2005, those bent on civilian disarmament have sought to bypass the legislation’s clear commands. In fact, 20 years later, gunmakers were fending off a frivolous nuisance suit from the city of Gary, Ind., filed in 1999, despite the PLCAA and state-analogue legislation.

The New York Times Tries to Explain the Drop in Crime

The New York Times is attempting to explain away the Trump administration's success at lowering crime rates with these explanations.

Winner-Take-All Elections Mark A New Chapter In The Second Amendment

Will a meaningful Second Amendment survive in Virginia? That this is even an open question shows how dramatically one election can reshape a state when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

Part 1: How the Mainstream Media Lost Touch With America—The Takeover by the Elites

Why is so much of the mainstream, legacy or corporate media opposed to our right to keep and bear arms? This three-part series attempts to answer these critical questions—understanding, after all, leads to solutions.

President’s Column | NRA Focus On The Vision

I can’t believe it’s been seven months since I was elected NRA president, and I’m already composing my eighth President’s Column. The officers never fully anticipated or appreciated the immense challenges we faced when elected.

Standing Guard | The NRA is Strong

The strength of the NRA is, and has always been, our membership. Without our millions of members, we would not be able to effectively rally behind elections for pro-freedom politicians; just as importantly, if not for our large membership, our representatives in office would not feel the same urgency to listen to us in this constitutional republic.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.