U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas got a wish granted this week when the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment case.
And even by agreeing to take up the case, liberals displayed their own hypocrisy on gun rights issues.
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett. It challenges New York state’s concealed carry law that requires a showing of need in order to obtain a license to carry.
Petitioners believe that self-defense when outside the home provides a sufficient demonstration of need.
The court said arguments will be limited to the question of "whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."
Slate staff writer Mark Stern claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case will leave Democrats with a decision of their own.
" . . . Democrats now have a clear choice between two concrete options," he said: "Allow SCOTUS to knock down state and local restrictions on concealed public carry in the midst of endless mass shootings, or expand the court."
Jezebel writer Ashley Reese made a similar argument.
"The timing couldn’t be more ghoulish. The United States has seen a spike in mass shootings in 2021, averaging more than one mass shooting each day." she wrote.
"Most Americans favor stricter gun control laws, but conservatives are salivating over the prospect of making their flawed fantasy a reality: More so-called ‘good guys’ with guns, ready and willing to stop the 'bad guys.'"
When Stern and Reese claim the United States is witnessing an uptick in "endless mass shootings," they’re actually making the argument in favor of concealed carry.
If mass shootings are as common as they’d have their readers believe, then the need for law-abiding citizens to carry their own weapons for self-protection is elevated.
The court’s decision also appalled Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
"New York’s nation-leading gun violence prevention laws . . . have made us the safest big state in the nation," Cuomo said in a statement.
"This NRA-backed case is a massive threat to that security. Imagine someone carrying a gun through Times Square, onto the subway, or to a tailgate outside of a Bills game."
First of all, people are already "carrying a gun through Times Square, onto the subway, or to a tailgate outside of a Bills game."
With the exception of law enforcement officers, those people are likely criminals.
And just like the previous examples, ordinary law-abiding citizens should have the ability to protect themselves from those criminals.
Finally, New York is hardly "the safest big state in the nation" — not since New York City joined the throng of jurisdictions that decided to defund police.
"We think defunding police is the right thing to do," said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as the city diverted some $1 billion in police funds to other programs.
One of the casualties was the 600-officer anti-crime unit.
As a result, murder rates in all five boroughs increased and the city saw a 130% jump in shootings in 2020 as compared to the previous year.
As of March 31, New York recorded 84 homicides, up 13% during the first three months of 2020.
And Cuomo himself isn’t against this "defund the police" madness.
"When they’re saying 'defund the police,'" he told reporters, "they’re saying they want fundamental change when it comes to policing. And they’re right."
But Cuomo doesn’t have to worry. As governor he enjoys the protection of armed security.
Rep. Alexandrea Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., along with the other three members of her democratic socialist "squad," also support defunding police.
They also support stringent gun control laws.
Yet they spend thousands of dollars on private armed security, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
That’s great if you can afford it, but the only means of defense for the average Joe is to take training in the use and safety of firearms, submit to a stringent background check, and purchase and carry a weapon.
Justice Thomas has been chomping at the bit for years to hear a good Second Amendment case.
Last year he observed that the court had only taken up a single gun rights case since 2011.
" . . . it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion," he said at the time. "But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens' Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way."
The fact that the court agreed to hear a new Second Amendment issue should give all conservatives cause to rejoice. The only thing better would be if the decision, when it comes, begins with the phrase, "Justice Thomas delivers the Opinion of the Court."
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. Read Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.