According to Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner, a seemingly unrelated Supreme Court ruling has opened the door to a major reversal in anti-gun legal tactics. The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, involved Medicaid funding and abortion services, but the language and logic used by the Court may directly impact how future Second Amendment cases are handled. Smith says this could be the beginning of a massive backfire for those trying to undermine gun rights.
Lower Courts Claimed Confusion – The Supreme Court Responded
For years now, anti-gun judges and scholars have claimed they don’t understand how to apply the Bruen decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, handed down in 2022. As Mark Smith explains, these lower courts have either pretended to be confused or genuinely failed to grasp what the Supreme Court has made clear: gun laws must align with the text and historical tradition of the Second Amendment.
The Bruen Strategy That Backfired
According to Smith, this strategy was intentional. The goal was to discredit Bruen by making it seem unworkable. If judges and scholars could make the methodology look confusing enough, they could pave the way to reinstate older, looser standards – like “interest balancing” or “tiers of scrutiny.” These allow judges to weigh public safety concerns against individual rights, which often results in gun control laws being upheld. But the Supreme Court, as Smith warns, just flipped the script.
The Planned Parenthood Case That Changed Everything
In Medina v. Planned Parenthood, the issue wasn’t about guns – it was about whether South Carolina could block Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services. The Supreme Court said yes, it could. But what really stood out was why the Court agreed to hear the case in the first place: the lower courts said they were confused. They didn’t know how to interpret the law. So, the Supreme Court stepped in and settled it.
Mark Smith’s Big Reveal: The Court Has Had Enough
Smith points out that the Supreme Court’s own words make this crystal clear. They said the reason they took the case was to “resolve the circuit’s disagreement” and to “address our lower court colleagues’ calls for clarification.” Translation? If lower courts keep whining that Bruen is too hard, the Supreme Court will step in again – and next time, it’ll be to clarify Second Amendment law even more in favor of gun rights.
Be Careful What You Wish For
There’s an old saying, “Be careful what you wish for.” Smith uses this to sum up what just happened. Anti-gun judges have been practically begging the Court for help understanding Bruen. Now that the Supreme Court has shown it will answer such calls, it’s likely to do so in a way that strengthens, not weakens, the Second Amendment. In other words, the anti-gun movement may have just talked itself into a legal defeat.
This Isn’t About Confusion – It’s About Power
Smith argues that this entire “confusion” narrative is bogus. Judges know how to interpret historical documents and constitutional text – they do it in other cases all the time. The problem isn’t complexity; it’s ideology. Many judges simply don’t like what the Second Amendment actually says, so they try to avoid enforcing it. Claiming ignorance is just a smokescreen.
The Trace Confirms the Confusion Tactic
Even The Trace, a left-leaning media outlet, admits there’s confusion. They published an analysis showing that over 2,000 gun law cases since Bruen have had wildly different outcomes. Judges can’t agree on what historical laws count, or how to interpret 18th-century rules. Smith sees this as deliberate chaos meant to stall progress on gun rights. But he believes this will only give the Supreme Court more reasons to get involved.
Smith: Supreme Court Isn’t Going to Backpedal
Mark Smith makes it very clear: the Supreme Court is not going to reverse Bruen. That ship has sailed. What’s more likely is that the Court will offer clarifications, just like they did in Medina, and every time they do, it will box out the anti-gun movement even further. If anything, this pattern shows the Court’s willingness to reassert control when lower judges go rogue.
A Brilliant Legal Turn
What’s fascinating here is how a case about Medicaid and abortion suddenly became a template for Second Amendment enforcement. That’s the beauty of law – one precedent can shape another, even when the topics seem unrelated. In this case, anti-gunners might have accidentally forced the Court to tighten the rules on their own behavior. It’s a legal checkmate in slow motion.
The Trap Was Always There
Here’s the twist – maybe the trap wasn’t set recently. Maybe it’s always been there. The Supreme Court has consistently warned that lower courts need to follow precedent. The problem is, many of them ignored those warnings. Now, with a 6-3 Court that includes Justices like Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, the leash is getting shorter. As Smith put it, if you cry for help too loud, don’t be surprised when the answer isn’t what you wanted.
The Clock Is Ticking for Anti-Gun Courts
In the end, Smith’s analysis delivers a simple message: the Supreme Court has made its move. The anti-gun legal strategy of feigned confusion has triggered the one thing they didn’t want – more Supreme Court oversight. And if history is any guide, that oversight won’t go their way. The Medina ruling proves the Court is willing to act when needed. The next time it does, it might be on Bruen. And this time, the Court won’t just be clarifying – it’ll be solidifying the right to keep and bear arms.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.