The Left have enjoyed a left-leaning Supreme Court for years.
But they are at a loss with the current makeup of the court.
And Amy Coney Barrett teed up a SCOTUS showdown that has leftists red with rage.
Deadline request puts Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s career in the spotlight for pro-gun Americans
Democrats have depended on the Supreme Court serving as a super-legislature for a long time.
Whenever they failed through the democratic process, they would lean on the high court to do their party business.
For instance, Democrats could not get gay marriage passed at the state level, not even in California, but a 5-4 Supreme Court decision made same-sex marriage the law of the land.
However, the current court has three liberals, three conservatives, and three conservative leans.
One of the leans is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who unsurprisingly voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision, but she has another matter before her that has people eager to see how she will rule.
After a horrific mass shooting on Independence Day 2022 in Highland Park, Illinois, the town of Naperville passed a law banning “assault-style” weapons.
A gun shop owner asked the Supreme Court to stop a lower court’s ruling from going into effect and authorizing the ban on the grounds that it would violate his Second Amendment rights.
Barrett, who handles such matters for the Midwest, asked Naperville to respond to the request for an injunction.
Illinois meets SCOTUS deadline, handing ACB a chance to make a legacy-defining ruling
The city met Barrett’s deadline, which now puts the ball back in her court, no pun intended.
Barrett has a big decision to make on a fundamental Constitutional issue.
Lawyers for Naperville wrote, “A single businessperson claims he may, as this litigation proceeds, suffer financial losses because he cannot sell a limited category of extremely dangerous assault rifles of little practical use for self-defense…At the same time … the residents of Naperville and Illinois will be placed at additional risk of mass murder…Those consequences far outweigh applicants’ speculative and purely monetary business concerns.”
First, self-defense is not the legal requirement to exercise Second Amendment rights.
Democrats always ignore the “shall not be infringed” language.
Second, “assault” weapon is a nebulous definition; lawmakers can expand the definition to include whatever they want.
The attorney for Robert Bevis, the gun shop owner, wrote, “This is an exceedingly simple case…The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home.”
All eyes are on Barrett to see how she rules.
Stay tuned to Blue State Blues for any updates to this ongoing story.