I freely admit that this recent Supreme Court decision came as a welcome surprise as I support the Constitution’s rights and limits as a standard against tyrants and their supporter’s who exalt their values over all else. As I listened to various reports, comments and opinions, such as Joe Biden, who said, “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.” This ludicrous remark of a simpleton suggests common sense is sufficient to overthrow Constitutionally established liberty. The Supreme Court has ruled in a case that is straightforward, in order to eliminate discord from a patchwork of useless and unnecessary guidance from lower courts and jurisdictions. Moreover and most importantly, it clearly reveals the baseless fallacy of dissenters who call for “means-end” analysis in decisions. 

I asked myself the question, “Upon what strained or distorted theory did the three dissenting Justices rely?” I read the opinion which was a brilliant analysis of historical interpretation, judicial analysis, and Constitutional construction. It came down to a simple reading that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and the State of New York’s law requiring citizens to prove they have some special demonstrable need infringes upon that right. However, Justice Alito’s concurring opinion went on to provide a concise answer to my question. First He addresses the fallacy of “means-end” testing which is simply what or whenever a judge believes the means satisfy the ends. Justice Alito, observed, “This mode of analysis places no firm limits on the ability of judges to sustain any law restricting the possession or use of a gun.” He recognized, “the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. Moreover, the dissent provides all sorts of statistics that are one-sided and irrelevant to obscure the true tests of authority.” Alito exposes the dissents lack of justification.

“There is no indication of the relevance of recent mass shootings, Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.”

A most insightful point was added, the dissenters assume the 2nd Amendment is subject to local and state legislatures, but it is no more regulated by the states than free speech or religious freedom. Matters not mentioned in the Constitution like abortion, marriage, and a host of other societal issues are subject to State legislatures – not the Bill of Rights, which are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Like the decision revoking Roe v. Wade, this decision will have minimal effect on the issue, but they both deliver a clear blow to the political enemies of America and provide important support for a return to the Rule of Law.