Washington Times Editorial Proposes Interesting Answer to SCOTUS Denial

The Supreme Court denied cert on the Snopes case, just in case you hadn’t seen the 50,000 articles flying around the internet about the matter. None of us is thrilled about it, even with the promise that the court would actually hear a case in the very near future. The future ain’t now, so it’s not making any of us feel warm and tingly.

Over at the Washington Times, their editorial board is a bit miffed about it, too.

They think it’s nonsense, which is right. They also have a proposal on what Congress and the president should do about it.

Congress and the president shouldn’t rest while the high court winks at states that perpetuate injustice. The House ought to force the issue by adopting legislation providing nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permits.

Introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, North Carolina Republican, the bill would enable a resident of one state to lawfully protect himself and his family when traveling to jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia, where officials intentionally make the requirements for obtaining a permit expensive and onerous.

Under the proposal, which has cleared the Judiciary Committee, concealed carry permits would function like driver’s licenses. A permit valid in one state would be recognized as valid in another, so long as permit holders abide by local regulations when exercising their right.

Such legislation is one way the legislative and executive branches can remind the high court and rebellious Democratic-led states that the Bill of Rights isn’t optional.

I mean, it’s an interesting proposal. Lord knows, I’d love to see national reciprocity passed and signed into law, even if only to be a massive middle finger to anti-gun states that think they’re better than the rest of the nation. That’s even funnier considering how few of them are on the Brady list for their permits being sufficient to bypass the NICS check by the ATF.

But I’m not sure it would do what the editorial board thinks it will.

If it would, then wouldn’t the Hearing Protection Act passing accomplish the same thing? I mean, that whittles away at the National Firearms Act, the most untouchable gun control law in the nation, supposedly. Passing that should do the same thing, or so I would argue.

The truth, though, is that the Supreme Court isn’t intended to be pressured by Congress and the White House. They’re a co-equal branch of our government that is ultimately supposed to serve as a check on both the legislative and executive branches. Our Founding Fathers’ intentions were for them to be independent in their actions.

I just don’t see the justices seeing a pro-gun law passing and thinking, “Hey, I guess that means we should totally ignore what we just did.”

That said, if it makes Congress get off the pot and actually pass national reciprocity, so be it. I just can’t pretend this Congress hasn’t already taken steps to do more for restoring our Second Amendment rights than any other Congress since they simply refused to renew the assault weapon ban in 2006.

I’m not sure that will accomplish anything in the long run except alienate those who already tried to give us a win.