Having "good moral character" doesn't sound like a bad requirement for owning blasters, right?

Let's talk about it.

New York City, hateful of the right to defend oneself as it is, has this fun paragraph in theNew York City Administrative Code Section 10-303:

10-303 Permits for possession and purchase of rifles and shotguns.

It shall be unlawful to dispose of any rifle or shotgun to any person unless said person is the holder of a permit for possession and purchase of rifles and shotguns; it shall be unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession any rifle or shotgun unless said person is the holder of a permit for the possession and purchase of rifles and shotguns.

That's right, you need government permission, by way of a permit, to even think about owning a rifle or shotgun (this isn't even getting into the matter of handguns!).

Now let's look at some of the requirements NYC looks at before it [checks notes] ALLOWS YOU TO HOLD A PERMIT TO POSSESS A RIFLE.

a. Requirements. No person shall be denied a permit to purchase and possess a rifle or shotgun unless the applicant:

(1) is under the age of twenty-one; or

(2) is not of good moral character; or

(3) has been convicted anywhere of a felony...

(4) has not stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness or been confined to any hospital or institution, public or private, for mental illness; or

(5) is not now free from any mental disorders, defects or diseases that would impair the ability safely to possess or use a rifle or shotgun; or

There's two more clauses added to this fun list, including "ineligibility order issues" and court orders that include cases involving stalking, child endangerment, domestic abuse, and "general good cause."

Maybe that gobbledygook is boring, but I'm here to give you the details because a federal judge just struck down requirements #2 and #9 there. I myself would've just gone ahead and struck all of those down besides maybe #3 (concerning felons), but even that one would've been hard to keep in.

Now we get to the decision of a Trump-appointed judge who has come to the rescue:

US District Judge John Cronan struck down the regulations in a 48-page ruling, determining that empowering unelected officials with discretionary authority to refuse gun permits to those "not of good moral character" or for "other good cause" is inconsistent with the country's "tradition of firearm regulation"...

Cronan, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, found the city requirements "vague and unconstrained" but stayed his ruling through Thursday to allow officials time to appeal.

The case under review in this decision was from 2019, when a man named Joseph Srour was denied a gun permit because of "twenty-eight moving violations" (driving tickets/citations) and "thirty license suspensions." In essence, because the guy was a bad/reckless driver, it was deemed essential to revoke his right to the Second Amendment.

Maybe you think there's a case there, but I want you to go back up to that list.

How you define "good moral character" is very different from how the government defines "good moral character" in the wasteland of 2023.

Right now, we're talking about a reckless driver. But what happens when the government decides someone voting for Trump is evidence of "bad moral character"? What if refusing to call a man a woman is labeled "bad moral character"? They might even call you mentally ill for believing men can't be women!

Remember that time you told your school board you don't want gay porn in your kid's elementary school? Evidence of bad moral character!

Do you see where this goes?

We can discuss lawful gun regulation, but methinks the rabid anti-gunners have one goal in mind with the "good moral character" generalities.

Another reason to vote red in next year's election!

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇