State Supreme Courts challenging USSC

Pennsylvania supreme court essentially asking the USSC, wtf with your gun rights rulings? You can't be serious...

Another State’s High Court Just Told the U.S. Supreme Court: Enough With the Gun Craziness (msn.com)

The U.S. Supreme Court’s acute hostility toward gun safety laws faced more criticism from within the judiciary on Wednesday when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sharply criticized recent precedents expanding the right to bear arms. In a 4–1 ruling, the Pennsylvania court upheld local restrictions on shooting ranges—and urged SCOTUS to reconsider its embrace of a radical, dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Another State’s High Court Just Told the U.S. Supreme Court: Enough With the Gun Craziness (msn.com)

This is yet another lower court looking at the decision in Bruen, raising its eyebrows, and saying, “Are you serious about this, SCOTUS?” This case asked—and I’m not exaggerating here—whether individuals possess a right to set up shooting ranges at their homes. Specifically, in their backyards, in residential neighborhoods. A town in Pennsylvania has a zoning ordinance that prohibits shooting ranges in private residences. Do I have to explain why? It seems pretty obvious why you wouldn’t want stray bullets flying around a residential neighborhood. But this gun owner sued for a right to use his property as a shooting range, and he actually won in the lower courts.

On Wednesday, though, he lost at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court said: “We’re not so sure about the history that was used in Heller and Bruen, and we note some serious skepticism with how the Supreme Court is handling these Second Amendment cases. But we can play amateur historian as well as the next guy.” The court pointed to a pile of historical analogues to the law at issue here—“26 pages’ worth of summaries of over 100 statutes and ordinances emanating from cities spanning more than 40 states and covering all time periods of our nation’s history.” They all show that there is in fact a deeply rooted tradition of preventing people from firing guns in their garages. One justice did dissent, but rationality won this time, and the court used the opportunity to talk about how far SCOTUS has veered away from any semblance of legitimate constitutional interpretation here.
.......................................................
Anyway, some of the language in this opinion borders on salty. I wanted to read a quote from the majority opinion: “We close by adding our voice to the ever-growing chorus of courts across the country that have implored the High Court to answer some of the many questions Bruen both created and left unresolved—or even to reconsider its path entirely. Our Nation is gripped by a level of deadly gun violence our founders never could have conceived, and, respectfully, some of the Court’s actions in recent years have done little to quell the legitimate fears of ‘the people.’ ”

I just want to tell you that if there were an irony font, the word respectfully would be in it. This is the court telling SCOTUS: “You opened a Pandora’s box in Bruen then walked away. What the hell are we supposed to do?”