There have been a number of Second Amendment cases that have made their way to the Supreme Court in recent years. That alone should make all of us carefully examine the nominees for the court. Some of the decisions in the past have been five-four, meaning that placing one of two liberal justices on the Court could easily end the Second Amendment. There is no higher court than the Supreme Court–if the Court begins to undo the Second Amendment, there will be no place to appeal.
On Monday, The Epoch Times posted an article about another Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court recently heard and ruled on.
The article reports:
The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 3 that upheld one of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws, months after the high court expanded Second Amendment rights.
The Massachusetts law in question, the constitutionality of which is now in doubt, imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns—but not possessing them—on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involved the possession or use of guns.
The high court remanded the case, Morin v. Lyver (court file 21-1160), to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s landmark June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Massachusetts was previously added to Morin v. Lyver as an intervenor to defend the constitutionality of the state law.
The order was unsigned and no justices indicated they were dissenting from it. The justices didn’t explain why they granted the order.
In Bruen, a 6–3 ruling, the high court recognized a constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense and struck down New York’s law that required an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
The court also found that gun restrictions must be deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive constitutional scrutiny.
The person in the Massachusetts case was Alfred Morin, a resident of Massachusetts. Mr. Morin, who has a concealed carry permit in Massachusetts, traveled to Washington, D.C., and was visiting the American Museum of Modern History, when he saw a sign saying that guns were not permitted. He approached a guard to ask where he could check his gun. Mr. Morin possessed a valid Massachusetts License to Carry Firearms but was unaware that District of Columbia laws prohibited him from carrying his gun, despite having the Massachusetts license.
The article continues the story:
Police arrested Morin and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
On Nov. 8, 2004, Morin pleaded guilty to attempting to carry a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm, both misdemeanors.
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia sentenced Morin to 60 days imprisonment on each count, three months of supervised probation, and 20 hours of community service. The court suspended the imprisonment portion of the sentence.
Morin later applied to police in his home state for a Firearms Identification Card and a permit to buy a firearm in February 2018. Respondent William Lyver, chief of the Northborough, Massachusetts, police department, denied Morin’s application for a permit to purchase on April 4, 2018.
The Supreme Court summarily disposed of the pending case, simultaneously granting the petitioner’s request seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase at which the merits of the case would have been considered. Some lawyers call this process GVR, which stands for grant, vacate, and remand.
Mr. Morin should have checked the laws of Washington, D.C., before bringing his gun there. However, he did the right thing in approaching the guard in the museum. There was absolutely no reason to arrest him–they should have simply told him to leave Washington, D.C., and come back without his gun. This entire case was totally unnecessary.