The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in support of the Second Amendment this week. Naturally, the backlash has been swift and brutal.
The court ruled 6-3 that New York’s restrictive concealed carry permit system was unconstitutional. Known as a “may issue” system, it essentially required New Yorkers to convince a government bureaucrat that they had “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry a firearm outside the home.
The high court’s ruling declares this a violation of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment — a violation, given that these amendments establish a right to keep and bear (read: outside the home) arms in self-defense. New York’s subjective, restrictive system treated self-defense as a privilege, not a right, so the justices struck it down.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
Predictably, many prominent Democrats have spoken out against this decision. But the criticisms they’re making miss the mark — and reveal the flaw in their constitutional thinking.
“This decision isn’t just reckless. It’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said. “If the federal government will not have sweeping laws to protect us, then our states and our governors have a moral responsibility to do what we can and have laws that protect our citizens.”
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, also a Democrat, spoke out against the ruling on MSNBC, stressing “the importance of federalism,” the idea that states and localities should get to make their own rules rather than having things decided at the national level.
These are just two high-profile examples, but many Democrats have made this sort of assertion. The Supreme Court is overstepping and infringing on New Yorkers’ rights to decide their own public safety policies democratically is how the argument goes.
It’s utterly unconvincing. Restricting democracy is literally the point of the Bill of Rights.
While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.
In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.
Democrats should realize that it’s not an argument against the court’s ruling to point out that a majority of New Yorkers support restricting this right — it’s a reminder as to why the court’s decision is so desperately needed.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a co-founder of Based-Politics.com, a co-host of the BasedPolitics podcast, and a Washington Examiner contributor.
