Official portrait of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Credit: Fred Schilling / United States Supreme CourtGun rights experts are schooling Far-left Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson following her stupid dissent in a key gun rights case earlier this week.As TGP’s Jordan Conradson reported, the Supreme Court sided with three Hawaii residents on Thursday, overturning a law that barred concealed-carry permit holders from exercising their rights in public.All three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Jackson, dissented in the 6-3 ruling.To defend disarming its residents, Hawaii relied in part on a blatantly racist 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the post-Civil War Black Codes. This made it illegal to carry firearms onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent.Of course, this was due to the fact that Louisiana, which was ruled at the time by racist white Democrats, feared an armed black populace.“It is disgraceful that any state would rely on a law specifically aimed at taking away the Second Amendment rights or any constitutional right of Black Americans as it was at that time,” attorney Kevin O’Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, told Fox News.Jackson, however, had a different take. Jackson claimed in her dissent that the Court ignored what she considered an important constitutional question.Jackson claimed the Court should have first decided whether the Louisiana law itself violated the Second Amendment, or if the real constitutional problem was that it was enforced in a racially discriminatory way.“It might well be that the Black Codes are invalid inputs for Bruen’s test,” she wrote, “but only if they violated the Second Amendment — which may or may not be the case.”More from Fox News:Instead, she argued that under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the Court could not simply dismiss those laws without first explaining why they should not count as historical evidence.She outlined two possibilities: either the firearm restrictions in the Black Codes were constitutional but enforced in a racially discriminatory manner — making the constitutional defect an equal-protection problem — or the restrictions independently violated the Second Amendment. The Court, she argued, never resolved that question before excluding the Louisiana law from consideration.“Either history does matter, and if so, all potentially relevant historical experiences must be thoroughly examined,” she wrote. “Or, it does not, and the Court should just admit that the test it has created is boundless.”But pro-Second Amendment experts were quick to note where Jackson went wrong.“I would simply point her to what Justice Alito pointed out in the majority ruling — it was in response to these types of laws that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in the first place,” Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Association of Gun Rights, told Fox News.“That right there is your answer,” Hill continued. “Yes, there was a historical tradition — they enacted a constitutional amendment to fix that deprivation of rights, and that is also in the Constitution now, so I think she should probably go back to law school.”Tyler Yzaguirre, president of Second Amendment Institute, agreed with Hill.“Those laws were not legitimate expressions of our Nation’s constitutional tradition; they were examples of government using its power to deprive Americans of a fundamental right,” Yzaguirre explained to Fox News. “The Court was right to reject the notion that such laws could define the historical limits of the Second Amendment.”The post Justice Jackson Hit With a Major Constitutional Lesson Following Her Dissent in Hawaii Gun Rights Case – State Relied on an Old ‘Black Code’ Law to Disarm Residents appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.