Dick Heller
Dick Heller, plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia, in front of the Supreme Court in 2018. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

The United States Supreme Court has struck down New York’s “proper cause” or “may issue” requirement for obtaining concealed carry permits in a 6 to 3 opinion handed down today in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This is the case that was a second bite at the apple, challenging New York’s “may issue” concealed carry restrictions after the case that was argued in 2019 was declared moot when the New York changed its laws to avoid an adverse high court ruling.

You can read the full ruling here.

New York’s gun control law requires citizens to show “proper cause” why they should be allowed to exercise their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. In short, the Bruen case was brought to decide whether the Second Amendment allows the government to arbitrarily prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas writes . . .

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582.

And then there’s this . . .

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

And Justice Thomas made a particular point to include this gem . . .

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

Given its “conservative” majority, most observers expected the Court to strike down the New York restrictions on concealed carry. The big question was, how would the majority opinion be written? How far-reaching would the ruling be? Would the Bruen decision form the legal basis for challenging and overturning more gun control laws — from magazine capacity limits to “assault weapons” bans to purchase age limits — in cities and states all over the country?

Gun control supporters’ biggest fear when the Court took the case was that, in combination with Heller and McDonald, the ruling would allow lower courts to apply strict scrutiny to any laws which limit the right to keep and bear arms — basically treating the Second Amendment as the equal to other civil rights. Doing so would potentially topple a range of gun control laws nationwide.

Today, all of the gun control industry’s worst fears have come true. Thomas’s opinion is everything gun rights supporters could have hoped for.

Again from Justice Thomas’s opinion . . .

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Today, finally, the Court has ruled that governments cannot require citizens to show “proper cause” why they are entitled to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Also governments must demonstrate a compelling reason for limiting those rights in certain, very particular circumstances.

The implications of the ruling are, it should go without saying, enormous. The Court has just ended “may issue” concealed carry nationwide. And with its rejection of means-end tests and interest-balancing, the Heller/McDonald/Bruen decisions could be the basis for bringing down a range of gun control laws across the country.

Keep in mind, however, that this doesn’t mean that anti-gun jurisdictions like New York, California, Hawaii and others will now be handing out concealed carry permits like candy. Expect them to put up barriers such as high fees and extensive training requirements (which, if they’re too burdensome, will then be challenged in the courts). Today’s ruling simply means that that these governments can no longer make arbitrary decisions regarding whose civil rights can be exercised and whose can’t.

We’ll have more analysis of the ruling and its potential ramifications soon. In the mean time, pop the cork on a champagne bottle. This has been a landmark day for gun rights.

 

 

 

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

260 COMMENTS

    • “The Court has just ended “may issue” concealed carry nationwide…”

      I’ll believe it when I see it. “May issue” is still codified into our state law here in CA, where many of our gun control laws that prompt others to mock up were, in fact, co-authored and pushed over the past several years by none other than Governor Newsom himself. He and his Sacramento fan base will be pushing against this as far as they think they can get away with it. They’ll wait to change our “may issue” standards until sued to do so. In the meantime, it’s still a wait-and-see game for those of us who have CCW applications in the pipeline.

      For me, it’s now been eleven months since I submitted my application to LASD. I’ve been inquiring about the status, but have received no response whatsoever.

      So guess what?…from today forward, I’m going to carry regardless, in light of today’s SCOTUS decision. I’m done with this crap.

      • Henceforth, you may have grounds for a section 1983 suit for deprivation of your constitutional rights under color of law.

        • I was wondering if this decision opens shall issue states without constitutional carry to being sued.

        • CP:
          It does not. Decision specifically held that “shall issue” systems are constitutional.

      • Not having read this rather lengthy decision, I assume it does not answer whether states may still require, as your analysis suggests, the issuance of a license to allow for concealed carry. In other words, do we still need to apply for a license so that the state can weed out those who are prohibited from bearing arms, such as felons and those who have suffered the ignominy of an involuntary psychiatric admission. Currently, 25 states do not require a license, 8 are may issue, and the remaining 17 are “shall issue” (with varying reciprocity provisions). Assuming the 8 “may issue” states are now “shall issue,” that means half the states require a license to carry; no doubt California will join that crowd.

        • “In other words, do we still need to apply for a license so that the state can weed out those who are prohibited from bearing arms, such as felons and those who have suffered the ignominy of an involuntary psychiatric admission.”

          In which states, exactly, do carry license statutes/requirements “weed out” (i.e. constrain from carrying) such people? Please show your work.

        • “In which states, exactly, do carry license statutes/requirements “weed out” (i.e. constrain from carrying) such people?”

          In Florida, you fill out an application for your concealed-carry permit. They accept it, and perform background checks, etc. The applicant is either issued the permit or denied. Denial is the “weeding out”.

          Does that qualify for ‘showing your work’?

        • Will we be forced to litigate away every last bullshit law?

          Perhaps just dare them to prosecute?

          Respond with a counter-suit of our own for denial of a civil right with a healthy cash penalty like women get for invasive roadside frisks?

      • I Haz IN fact the CA has a law which conflicts with the NYSRPA decision means that the people of the state of California will have to bring suit to enforce the NYSRPA decision.

        • “…people of the state of California will have to bring suit to enforce the NYSRPA decision.”

          By design. The whole thing starts over, to be argued through the entire federal system. Bruen was simply an aspirational statement. Implementation is not automatic, and the DOJ of neither party will arrest state, or court officials who defy the SC.

        • Sam, that is the way to justice system works. I doubt that the 9th circuit will opposed this decision, but I could be wrong.

    • The left are going to flip out and complain about “originialism” means “muskets.” My usual, albeit ineffective rebuttal, is that the founders said “arms” not “muskets” and arms means whatever the common arms are at that time, and that was their intention.

      Of course the left doesn’t accept this obvious conclusion and rejects it for whatever is more restrictive that they can come up with at that moment.

      • That reasoning was specifically refuted in the decision. Wacky Dems may say it, but it can’t be used as an argument in court because Bruen specifically said that “arms” that didn’t exist in the 1700s are protected.

        • Wacky Dems who unironically read “news” stories on the internet about how Rights in the Bill of Rights can only apply to technology available in the 1700s. “News” stories that reach a million people in a second talk about how it’s not that guns aren’t bad, it’s the speed and power of modern technology that must be restricted to 1700s levels.

      • Lol, LMAO even.
        NY banned muskets in their most recent round of bills to take effect in a bit over a week. Headlines are going to be hilarious for months to come.

        • I am so happy that this starts in NY. I just hope it doesn’t fizzle, and that the lawsuits and destruction of gun control regimes in NY and around the country now gain some real momentum. I’m looking forward to the day when I can visit my homeland with no CCW required. Constitutional carry should be the law everywhere!

        • “Special” legislative session pending this coming Tuesday to see what other rights they missed.

      • “The left are going to flip out and complain about “originialism” means “muskets.””

        In that case, a ‘Free Press’ only applies to a printing press operated by a human arm, one page at a time…

        • With manually arranged type. Good luck with that given the 24hrs news cycle these days. And town criers in the plaza to announce headlines while ringing their bells (in Times Square for example).

      • See Justice Barrent’s concur on pg 82 looks to invite further litigation on Original Intent.

      • What the left and gun grabbers to not realize, at least when it comes to “assault rifles” is that the smooth bore musket was the “assault weapon” of it’s day. Why? Because the smooth bore could be loaded and fired more rapidly than a “rifled bore” firearm.
        Similar is, back in the 1700s there were small powerful handguns that were easily concealed for those who did not want to appear armed, yet still felt the need to carry “protection”.

      • Of course, my rejoinder to that argument is that their complaint is invalid unless authored via ink and quill, and submitted via horseback courier.

    • I heard on the radio this morning the wailing and pearl clutching in my part of the world. Amusing to hear about the 100+ year history of New York’s firearms licensing.

      No one mentioned the graft and corruption that came from the licensing system.

  2. Well, I wonder if this doesn’t have some unintended consequences beyond concealed carry. My understanding as I am not a Lawyer is that self defense can no longer be considered a second class right.

    • Oh, it most certainly does. No longer can states pass bills limiting gun types or magazine capacity on the basis of “public safety” or “saving the children” unless there is a specific articulable reason. Claiming that an assault rifle ban will prevent gun violence – when the actual number of homicides nationwide is less than 5%, will not be enough to allow those laws to stand. Thomas, et. al, just ruled that strict scrutiny must be applied in determining constitutionality – meaning that almost all of our current bans and restrictions are unconstitutional.

      • Actually, Thomas rejected all “means-ends” tests in the decision, including strict scrutiny. The only permissable method to examine gun control laws is now “history and tradition”- meaning how the world was understood when the 2A was drafted.

      • But then Bryer and Kavanaugh commented that permitting and background checks can still be done by states. The court never completely solves a problem they just work on it in small bits. Permits are just permission slips by a governing authority that allows you to exercise a constitutional right that they have no authority over. This is the kind of thinking that got us thousands of infringements .

        • I’m going to draw some hate here. But having a background check for a conceal carry license doesn’t bother me that much. I would VASTLY prefer getting rid of Tax Stamps, getting rid of magazine restrictions, ending “assault” rifle bans, getting rid of full auto manufacture bans.

          I know a carry permit system doesn’t stop bad guys from carrying. I REALLY like that no law abiding citizen will be turned down for getting a carry permit. I also really like Constitutional Carry like we have here in Texas.

          If you could focus on one infringement at a time, the need to pass a background check and get a carry permit is just really low on the list compared to other infringements.

        • Replying to Tim below Ed…

          “I would VASTLY prefer getting rid of”

          Embrace the power of “and”.

        • “But then Bryer and Kavanaugh commented that permitting and background checks can still be done by states.”

          There was no gun registration back then, as a matter of fact, serial numbers were few or non-existent.

          That means, gun registration is a hard *no*… 🙂

    • Scott,

      I sure hope this ruling has sweeping implications. For example I live in a state with shall-issue licensing for concealed carry and constitutional open carry (but NOT constitutional concealed carry). And yet we cannot have an unloaded shotgun or rifle readily accessible in a car, much less a loaded shotgun or rifle accessible in a car. I am seriously hoping that this ruling will overturn my state’s ban on long guns in cars.

    • Self defense is a first class right. Currently, when a claim of self-defense is asserted, all fifty states impose upon the prosecutor the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was NOT acting in self defense. (Canada by contrast does NOT recognize any such right, according to Trudeau.

      • Mark, technically this is not correct (the idiot manchilds interpretation not withstanding). We absolutely have the ‘right’ to self defense in every way you do, including the use of firearms. What you are alluding to is the northern colonies proletariat being denied the ‘right’ to keep and bear arms and instead it being called a privilege. But the ruling aristocracy taking it upon themselves to arbitrarily label a right a privilege does not make it so, other than by the threat of fine, incarceration and, ultimately, death… ie: the application of a government monopoly on the use of force.

        • Text, history, tradition — NO balancing allowed, whether it be intermediate or strict scrutiny.

          This is an epic decision. I’m working on a quick analysis, but at a minimum all “may issue” laws are toast. And the “red flag” laws the Senate is about to incentivize states to pass . . .

        • “I’m working on a quick analysis, but at a minimum all “may issue” laws are toast. And the “red flag” laws the Senate is about to incentivize states to pass . . .”

          AR bans? Magazine bans?

        • That song gave me a mescalin flash back. Bad trip. Wound up in Tulsa Oklahoma instead of Mark Twain National forest
          I dont like that song no more.

        • No, Geoff, I was PRAYING for “strict scrutiny”, but not thinking we’d be that lucky. What Thomas gave us, instead, was miles better. “Text, history, and tradition”, with the burden on the STATE to show that the regulation doesn’t infringe the 2A.

          Thomas came to kick @$$ and chew bubble gum . . . and didn’t bother to bring bubble gum. This was about as “in your face” opinion as you will ever read. The Leftist/fascists are probably beginning to realize that their ongoing persecution of this honorable man, starting with his confirmation hearings and going forward to today, was a really BAADDD idea. Thomas obviously had no f***s left to give, and told them so, in no uncertain terms. Makes Scalia’s Heller opinion look incredibly wimpy, in comparison.

        • Ultimately liberty is a gift freely given and cruelly taken. It’s always there but not always allowed to be expressed without consequence.

        • Having Justices who correctly interpret the Bill of Rights. Made all the difference. Even Justice Roberts got this one correct. Which in and of itself is surprising considering some of his other votes. This is a prime example of why votes matter in an election. For without President Trump being in office and picking Justices who interpreted the Constitution as written. Rulings such as this would have been impossible. Imagine had Hilary Clinton been President and filled the empty seats on the Supreme Court that President Trump did.

    • LKB, Are you writing an analysis on this ruling? Please?!? Whenever I see something about a court ruling I always hope to see your take on things. Always very well written, even I can understand it.

      • Of course; should drop later today. Needless to say, I’ve been waiting to write that analysis for a LONG time!

  4. Dan, this is dated March 24? Oops.

    Huray for Justice Thomas, as I assume he wrote the majority opinion. Now New Yorkers can properly defend themselves.

    • @C. Allen Cody, Jr.

      “Now New Yorkers can properly defend themselves.”

      Hold on there cowboy. In words and intent and spirit of the decision, yes that could be considered one aspect. But, New York and all ‘may-issue’ states are going to impose every speed bump and road block and impose increased requirements and cost they can so in practice its probably going to be a while before any “may-issue” state starts going into a real ‘shall-issue’ mode. So expect a lot of politics, political theater, lawsuits, claims and counter claims, and attacks and delays (even from Biden), to keep the ‘shall-issue’ concept from becoming law of the whole land.

      • You’re probably spot on there, .40 Cal. But, now, it will be a much steeper uphill climb for “them”. And, rightly so.

  5. RE: “The implications of the ruling are, it should go without saying, enormous.”

    Exactly…And well said, Justice Thomas.

    • Sounds like it’s time for a wave a lawsuits against unconstitutional gun control regimes nationwide. We could start by abandoning the red flag and “under 21” nonsense currently working its way through congress.

      • This is what a majority of cases were waiting for…great news from SCOTUS. Hallelujah! I even said a silent prayer to Saint Browning all this week and last. John Moses Browning via Clarence Thomas thus provideth.

    • Which is incredible! … but I already moved. Still, plenty enough silliness going on there to justify getting out! In Florida now, my biggest gun angst is sometimes deciding which one to wear.

  8. It’s either a right or it’s not. Playing games with it would destroy the Bill of Rights.

    Now buckle up: their alternative is repeal, and they’re going to start playing for all the marbles.

    • “Now buckle up: their alternative is repeal, and they’re going to start playing for all the marbles.”

      That requires 35 states, doesn’t it?

      Thank goodness flyover country has *lots* of low-population states… 🙂

      (BTW, good seeing you again, don’t be a stranger…)

      • Not sure you can repeal an amendment that is beyond the jurisdiction of the government.

        • The Constitution specifically allows for amendments. After all, Prohibition was repealed, and both the amendment and the repeal were added by amendment. But it is a very high standard.

        • How reciprocity is handled under this decision is going to be interesting.

          Will State “A” have to honor State “B”s permit?

      • 38. It takes 38 states to amend the Constitution. And no amendment repealing the 2nd will ever pass. The gun-grabbing totalitarians can suck my Glock.

        • With over half the states passing constitutional carry laws? Yeah it will be a cold day in Hell when such a repeal passes without a seismic shift in demographics.

      • Thank you! Life took me out of the gun circles for a bit, but I hope to start getting back in the swing of things soon.

      • 38 states. 3/4 to ratify.

        Currently, 25 states (and counting) are constitutional/permitless carry. I am pretty sure even more than that have a state-level version of a constitutional 2A.

        So, good luck with rhat, I guess?

    • “they” can “repeal” all they want. They will NEVER be able to “repeal” the God-given part of our own right to life… along with the means to protect that life. The right is not ‘given” by any words on paper by any politicians or representatives. Nope It comes from the same God who has given us life. Util “they” are bigger than He is, they are trying to shove a rope UP a drainpipe.

      • Correct; however, a repeal would be a repeal of the guarantee of governmental interference. And that is a different ball of wax.

    • I doubt the legality of repealing an amendment that’s in the original BOR. The only real way to do it would be have an Article V convention and essentially rewrite the whole constitution. Which still wouldn’t work as most states lean pro gun.

  9. Since every state is shall-issue now, we need to force the point that reciprocity is our right.

    • Not yet so. See my comment near the top of the section. CA and NY, at a minimum, will scheme to delay, delay, delay, and then obfuscate by making the parameters of a permit as restrictive as possible. Our permits are already valid for a much shorter term (two years) than what other States allow. And you may only carry guns that have been specifically approved and listed on the permit. And so on…

      • A think the “approved” list is toast. Under this ruling, I believe all arms in common use are protected and State “A” can’t ban something that States “H” through “G” recognize as in common use. Equal protection of the laws.

        • “A think the “approved” list is toast.”

          It has to be, since it was enacted because they claimed guns like the tiny NAA mini-revolvers were ‘unsafe’, with the exposed spur triggers.

          Another major driver were they wanted the inexpensive zinc-alloy pocket ‘Saturday Night Specials’ gone, since the “Wrong People” (meaning, Black) were the primary market…

  10. Glad we are caught up on pistol purchases for the near future. Now to read the decision.

    • And in truth the situation is not so different up here. Congrats on the ruling, hope it’s being noticed by our courts.

      • If I am understanding half of what the ruling says your courts may be running back to Europe to have nothing to do with us soon.

  12. Wow, and of course this is for Conceal Carry.

    I wonder if most States allowing Constitutional Carry had any effect on this outcome as well.

    My mind also wonders about Open Carry. If Conceal Carry cannot be restricted thru Proper Cause or May Issue, then what of Open Carry?

    I know there are court cases for Open Carry that have been in the courts for years.

    It would be nice to see a day where people who do not care for the sight of armed Americans in public or sometimes well meaning but over zealous law enforcement do not disturb people carrying Arms peacefully.

  13. The sounds you hear are progressive heads exploding across the nation. We have hundreds of firearm restrictions and laws on the books. Sounds to me like each one should be scrutinized in light of this development. Thank you, Justice Thomas for your majority opinion. But also thank you, Mr. Trump for appointing originalists to SCOTUS.

    • Was reading an article that just came out in the Mid Hudson Valley Dispatch news. The libs are screaming that this will allow a tidal wave of guns into New York that already has too many guns. The old foolishness of more guns more crime crap. I replied and gave them the example of Florida when the so called boat people which were former inmates from Castros’ prisons were allowed to stay in Florida. Crime surged and was out of control until carry permits were issued then it fizzled out. Even surviving criminals can learn. It’s not how many guns, it’s who has them.

      • “The libs are screaming that this will allow a tidal wave of guns into New York …”

        Ya know? A veritable “tidal wave” of guns into the hands of the law-abiding, rather than just those of the gangstas, thugs, crooks and the like, may just be what NY (both State and City) have been needing for nearly 100 years. We can only hope…

        BTW- A huge thanks to NYSRPA and it’s parent affiliate, NRA, for running this case over the past years and pursuing the restoration of rights for all Americans.

        If you know Tom King, NYSRPA President and NRA Board member, drop him a line of congrats! Credit where credit is due.

        • Mitch shepherded Goresuch, Kav, and Coney Barret to their seats on the high court…

      • Same one (McConnell) that wants to go along with the recent “Bipartisan Gun Safety legislation” arrangement…no, abomination being discussed?

        • Call your R senators. SCOTUS’s work is worthy of celebration, but the attack is in multiple fronts (“Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”, Dettelbach nomination, etc.).

      • For all of the stupid people who kept insisting “Trump never did anything for us for the 2A” can suck on this – Every Justice he got seated on the SCOTUS voted for this decison.

        Thank God for President Trump…. 🙂

        It’s gonna be riot watching the Leftist Scum (TM) flip the Fvck out…

    • I think you’ll be kicking and scratching all the way out there. Look at how some states and municipalities have scoffed at Heller…

      The main thing is to never give up.

  16. Hopefully the ruling ends the days of democRats saying the Founding Fathers had no idea firearms would be as deadly as those today. Well back then there were weapons around that also fired multiple rounds…And what sneaky underhanded Gun Control democRats hope flies right over your head..The firearms in the hands of the citizens back then used Black Powder and Black Powder could be used by the citizenry for bomb making…ka BOOOM…no more red coats.

    • Then again, you could not pay me enough to stand in the way of a .69 caliber round ball fired from a musket. The damage caused is quite massive.

  17. Just keep in mind, that these rabid, psychotic Nihilist Marxists will not see this as a defeat, but as a stimulus to further Deprive Americans of their Constitutional Rights. Right now this month the ATF is getting ready to announce their own illegal fake legislation on whether or not a previously designated non-firearm 80 percent receiver frames will now become an actual firearm requiring registration.simply by administrative decree! Therefore subjecting thousands of previous buyers to illegal harassment and stress.

    Let’s notify our Senators to find out how they allow a rogue law enforcement agency to act as law-Makers?

  18. The second paragraph of the opinion clearly state that the two step process being used by lower courts has been rejected by the high court. Clearly states a single step process MUST be used. The demorats are going to flip out.

    • All they’ll do is turn their two step process into a single step.

      Now:
      1. Blah blah blah.
      2. You’re fucked.

      After:
      1.Blah blah blah, you’re fucked.

      • Uh no. The opinion states that the single step must be “Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. “

        • You’re right, the states would never do anything to limit the ruling. Just look at how restrictions have tried to neuter Heller.

          My bad.

  19. Help a Plebian out here, does this mean constitutional carry across the whole US? Or am I too hopeful

    • That may be taking it too far, at least yet. I know we want to hail this decision as “yay, open carrying my new belt fed machine gun and silencer today in a California Starbucks, and I’m even from out of state!”

      I would think the main thing is NY may issue permits for concealed carrying handguns (eg non issues except for bribes) won’t fly anymore, but then how that precedent affects other states and gun control, as well as a timeline for that, would be my question. Will California and Hawaii instantly start issuing concealed carry licenses today, or do they need to be sued first? Do they have to repeal or rewrite legislation, can they try other tricks to kick things back into the courts to resolve, that is a good question.

      It seems like a good win regardless, optimistically looking forward to more review and discussion and seeing what it means long term!

      • TheUnspoken,

        I know we want to hail this decision as “yay, open carrying my new belt fed machine gun and silencer today in a California Starbucks, and I’m even from out of state!”

        That is the best and most succinct characterization of the pro-firearm mindset that I have ever heard. I tip my hat to you fine sir or ma’am.

    • … does this mean constitutional carry across the whole US?

      It already exists. The question is, will this put the un-Constitutional laws in the grave?

      • Exists…but not enforceable. And they’ll have to drag it through appeals in the lower courts–where they’ve done a great job of ignoring Heller and McDonald already. BUT, it’s still a great ruling. We’ll see how this plays out.

    • No, it just means states can’t require a reason for wanting a license to carry, if you pass their training requirements and background checks then they must issue a license.

    • No it does not. The opinion recognizes the state right to issue licenses as long as they are MAY ISSUE.

  20. “In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach.”

    https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1539991076647436289

    Goodbye NFA and 1968 Gun Control Act. Goodbye NICs. This is huge. Give money to GOA, FPC and other orgs so they can challenge unconstitutional gun laws.

    • While an MP5 would be out of the price range for a while a short barreled shotgun would be nice. Need to get rid of the state level NFA ban as well though.

        • Others are illegal in NY in a week+change and of questionable status after re grandfathered. Agree with your suggestions but picked up what I could before deadlines and they didn’t make the cut with budget and I would prefer a stock so wait till I can collect stamps I guess.

    • Umm, I don’t think so sports fans. Although I have not yet read the opinion, it does not eliminate bans on felons and the mentally ill from exercising 2A rights, hence background checks are still constitutional. So NICS is here to stay. The NFA was upheld by SCOTUS in Miller v. US as simply a tax, not an infringement on the 2A right. Therefore it is not terribly likely to be overturned.

  21. I look for every CC hand gun on the approved roster to get “vacuumed up” by California now.

    Until someone decides to get through the courts too.

    • Not sure. It isn’t like the Harris/Biden regime will be sending US Marshals to enforce this new decision.

      Governments tend to commit illegal/unConstitutional actions so long as they can get away with them and no one makes them stop. At least now, the citizens have more than a leg to stand on. Perhaps a Jane’s Revenge “Night of Rage” against Newsome, Hochul and other governors, along with some doxxing might be a good thing. Not advocating it at all, just sayin’…

  22. next step will be the end of Mother May I Cards altogetther. If I ican legally OWN something I must legally be able to CARRY that item

    I’d also like to see the end of the current burden of NICS as presently handled. Reform the system such that anyone can access the database to check if a Person is prohibited, and thus a seller should, instantly, any time and from anywhere. Also clean up the system such that “similar’ names cannot possibly ever be confused, thus ending “false positives”. Oh, and DUMP the page that tempts gummit to illegally maintain a permanent record of who has what where. Nunnadeybidniss. The purported function of NICS is to determine if a putative buyer is not debarred the use of arms due to criminal record. Once that is determined, WHAT or HOW MANY he buys is irrelevant. So stop making it part of the transaction.

    • I would not bet on it. Mother may I cards still serve the purpose of demonstrating that you are not prohibited from possessing firearms, and there is nothing in the opinion suggesting an elimination of those prohibitions.

  23. Excellent. Of course, these states will make it very difficult to carry but still, this is a good day. And I’m happy.

  25. Being in Commifornia, this is a great decision that will end tyranny that I and all Californians have had to suffer with for a very long time.
    Thank you Supreme Court.

  26. Great day!
    Granted NY et al will still impose other restrictions to prevent We The People from exercising our Constitutional rights.

    But still, a good day to be celebrated with a steak and beer!

    • Depending on how this single layer of scrutiny shakes out they may have some problems.

  27. Break out the KY Jelly for New Jersey and Massachusetts politicians. They’re gonna need it.

  28. sorry to thrown cold water on this but i doubt much will change in NY, CA or the other states this impacts. this is because those states will issue permits with pages of restrictions that basically swallow up the permit.

    they’ll “shall issue” a carry permit that does not allow carry in “sensitive places” they’ll define as parks, schools, stores with a “no carry” sign, restaurants that serve alcohol, elder care facilities, government facilities, banks, churches, businesses that cater to children, etc etc etc. until there’s really nowhere to carry as a practical matter.

    Next they’ll layer on onerous licensing requirements: insurance, application fees, training requirements, background checks, medical evaluations, etc etc etc

    the result will be that yes technically you can get a shall issue permit but the permit will have so many restrictions and exceptions it will be worthless and impossible to follow.

      • Here is what Justice Thomas said about it: “To be clear, analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. … So even if a modernday regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible. … “

    • The 2nd IS the permit.

      fppf obviously didn’t bother to read any of the decision.

      pg2 ” Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”

      They reject all the prog states antigun schemes.

    • fppf,

      I suspect that Hawaii, California, New Jersey, and New York will simply ignore this ruling. And why shouldn’t they? The Justice Departments in those states certainly are not going to prosecute their own state governments nor their enforcers. And the United States Justice Department is not going to prosecute any of those state governments nor their enforcers for Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

      Don’t believe me? Reference the U.S. Supreme Court 1832 Worcester v. Georgia decision where U.S. President Andrew Jackson retorted, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

    • “this is because those states will issue permits with pages of restrictions that basically swallow up the permit.”

      Remember what the city of Chicago tried to do after shall-issue became law there?

      They tried playing games with not issuing permits for gun stores and gun ranges in the city. Basically told the city had a choice, start issuing permits, or it would be constitutional carry.

      The courts slapped that crap down in short order…

      I expect the same here…

    • I was expecting 5-4, to be honest, that Roberts would chicken out.

      6-3 at least gives the ruling more credibility…

  30. “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.”

    That is not shall issue…that is it is a right. Government offices do not have a say if the person has their rights, which means in the 25 states that have permitless or Constitutional carry have it right. It also could be used to justify one’s permit in any other state: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The bad news is that the 21 years old crap, does have a basis.

  31. Judges are not perfect. After all they are as human as the rest of us. But Justice Clarence Thomas is about the closest thing to perfect the court has ever seen. Thank God we have him. And to be honest he was appointed by George Bush, the father. And I remember very well what they try to do to destroy Thomas. I remember the Anita Hill accusations very well.

    And I also remember those same accusations were dismissed against a white man, Bill Clinton.

    This is cause for celebration. And being it’s very close to the 4th of July, I think that brings special meaning to Independence Day. But the tyrants will not give up. Anyone who believes that the tyrants, will simply start to follow the Supreme Court ruling, about the Second Amendment which favors Liberty for you, you are just fooling yourselves.

    The other shoe is about to drop regarding this upcoming abortion case. And if the Supreme Court makes this a state issue only? Then it will be a very good thing that you have a second amendment.

    Because I fully expect there will be riots. Cities will burn. And Christian churches everywhere will be attacked. And we will see if the police stand down and do nothing. Like they did in 2020.

  32. The SCOTUS just affirmed what ole ziegler has been saying for years.

    My permit to carry has been on file since 1791.

  34. “JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring” is interesting in suggesting futher litigation is needed to decide once/for all “Original Intent” (2nd or all other areas of the Constitution/BOR).

  35. I see lots of “black pilled” folks in the firearm community. They believe that all rights will eventually be lost. To those folks, I say this:

    It’ll never NOT be a fight and that’s a shame. But it’s a fight we can overcome. The SC may not take many cases, but now the lower courts will be forced to use a higher level of scrutiny. Congress may try to strip more rights than they give, but you can almost always count on Democrats overreaching to the point nothing gets done. Not every politician who pretends to be Pro Gun actually IS, but we can primary them and slowly affect change.

    Will the nation spin on it’s heels and undo every gun law? Of course not. But things are generally moving in the correct direction

  36. I wonder what this SCOTUS decision means for the NFA? Sounds like minimally the ATF can’t ask the reason/purpose for the purchase. I also think the tax could be argued a burden on the right and not strict scrutiny. It appears to invalidate much of the NFA process. Am I wrong here? Is anyone going to examine this application to NFA?

    • I wouldn’t be on the NFA or GCA going away yet, but it certainty put it on notice. If nothing else, this might be used to knock out the Heller Amendment and kick open the doors on the NFA registry that’s been mostly shut down since the 80s.

      • You mean Hughes Amendment.

        Yes, effectively barring the manufacture and sale of automatic weapons through the administrative sleight of hand of closing the registry is unlikely to pass constitutional muster under the new standards.

        • The recent sightings of Glock ‘giggle-switches’ from Wish.com brought an interesting fact – Those Chinese select-fire modules were 3-D printed.

          The cat is truly out of the bag for good. they need to re-open the registry and make them legal.

          EDIT – I should just file a form 1, include the 200 dollars tax, and see what they have to say about it… 🙂

  37. i’m just gonna sit here in shock. and then pound a malort at 14:00.
    and then start mentioning it loudly around people who do not want to hear it. i might even embellish the implications.

    • It’s just like November 9, 2016 all aver again, isn’t it?

      Tomorrow at work, you will be grinning like a fool and giggling all day long… 🙂

  38. I have not looked at everything with this yet… but did Bidens new expected-anti-gun justice dissent?

  39. New York will simply increase the number of places you cannot carry a gun such as all businesses catering the public, of course all governmental buildings, schools, and all public transportation such as busses and subways and taxi cabs and all social events like indoor and outdoor concerts and all public events and celebrations like New Years Eve and 4th of July etc.

    Qualifications for a permit will include expensive training, as well as tough tests to pass the training, and long waits for permits. Considering the average intelligence level of most people who want to carry guns, most will fail the training tests to get a permit. Also there will be required background checks,
    mental tests and high insurance fees to pay for.

    Also anyone convicted of even a traffic violation may be and probably will be banned for getting a permit. Believe me New York will laugh at and work around the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    • Then NY will face the Illinois choice. Federal court gave them 30 days to stop the nonsense or go constitutional carry. And that wasn’t the SCOTUS

      You fascists love to deny human and civil rights.

      • Yep! I remember that well. It does cost a bit to get CCW permt and training here though. Around here at least 90 percent of businesses allow CCW and I noticed more and more over time because us firearm owners would not shop at places that did not allow it. Illinois democrat politicians promised that the state would be a blood bath after the CCW became reality but again it was all a lie.

    • Yes, dacian, go ahead, turn your states into hell holes where people cannot move without showing papers or be subject to arbitrary search and seizure.

      Or embrace freedom.

      Either way, we win.

    • And much like how you racist democrats did that with voting rights, it also will be struck down.

      This would ultimately help gun rights in the long run. As your loses pile up in the courts, there will be decades worth of legal precedent behind the second amendment.

      • Yep. Lawyers will be lining up to take 2A cases and get that landmark win under their name. Leftist better be wary of the court from now on when considering legislation.

    • While I would agree with Dacian at this moment in time, I’ll also point out that it’s still light years ahead of what New Yorkers have had for 80 years, and now they have a reason to start voting out the cretins that have kept them serfs for 80+ years. This at least takes the knee off NY citizen’s neck and they may be able to breathe again.

    • You really do have an obsessive need to be stupid and show your @$$, don’t you, dacian the stupid. Having written the opinion he wrote, and getting FIVE other justices, including Roberts the Squish, to sign on to it?? Yeah, I almost hope NY is that stupid; it would be fun to watch.

      No, because even the idiot Kathy Hochul isn’t as stupid as you, she knows better. They’ll shuck, jive, escape, evade and try to nibble around the edges of Bruen. Do as many delaying maneuvers as they can invent. King Canute proved how futile that was, din’t he? (Oh, I forgot, you’re a historical imbecile, and probably have no idea who King Canute was, or the relevance of that reference . . . just like you never figured out the reference to Balaam’s off @$$. You’d be more fun to abuse if you weren’t such an ignorant, uneducated halfwit. Hell, you knew little or nothing about Diogenes Sinope, and almost all of what you “knew” was errant horses***. You’re pathetic, dacian. Go back and get your GED.)

      • Spot on. Live in NY. They’ll ignore it. Then try to nullify it. Then slow walk a set of regulations to govern it. Then staff the permit bureau in each county with one person that only works on alternate Tuesdays. Then force all the instructors that currently certify for pistol permits to “recertify” for the new regs, but only offer two recertification courses somewhere near the Canadian border each year. And if you think the DOJ is going to prosecute anyone for contempt, forget it.

  40. I’m a retired lawyer, but I haven’t forgotten how to analyze a case. I read the opinion, the dissent, and the concurrences. I need to read them again. And again.

    FWIW, my take is that while “good cause” is dead, and “may issue” is gravely wounded, slave states like CA will continue to find ways to subvert the law. The opinion points out some of the ways to get around both 2A and 14A. The pathways are right there, like a roadmap.

    I also think it’s a danger sign that both the majority and their concurrences spent way to much time and ink limiting their own opinion. This from Alito’s concurrence:

    “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago [citation omitted] about re-
    strictions that may be imposed on the possession or carry-
    ing of guns.”

    So, we have a win. Thank you, Justice Thomas. You are great. But the gun grabbing will continue.

    • yep. that’s exactly what NY is doing next week: “Gov. Hochul, visibly angry, said that her team was reading the language of the decision and that they had already prepared draft legislation to place new restrictions on New Yorkers’ ability to carry guns. She planned to call the legislature back to Albany for a special session, she said, and was discussing dates with legislative leaders.
      “In that special session, we will have worked out language that identifies restrictions on sensitive locations, which we will be defining,” she said. “I don’t think this is going to take that long,” she added, saying that the special session would likely take place in July.”

      • Yep as expected and cue next round of expensive litigation (more tax bills) on basic liberties.

        • Mark I expect something like that but given the quality of our litigants based off of this case that may not even make it out of state level before getting thrown out if only not to risk the concept too early.

    • Alito is a great one for spineless weasel words. Did he ever READ the opinion from Thomas?

    • Do you think leftist action could be stymied or even help us in the long run? I see this as a boon for lawyers to further challenge restrictive 2A laws, as lawyers seek the fame and fortune that comes with a landmark SCOTUS win. More leftist legislation means more court victories, more precedent, more lawyers wanting in on the action. The leftist may hang themselves with their own legislation.

    • Yep. Alito went and said guns could be denied to a full quarter of the population on purely demographic grounds. Utter disappointment.

      • “guns could be denied to a full quarter of the population on purely demographic grounds.”

        What quarter was that?

        • Minors. Turns out it’s down to 19 point something percent with the last census, but historically it has been 25%.

    • Not a lawyer and definitely not your lawyer…but I’ve always in the 10 years I’ve been here made sure to slow down and read your posts.

      Isn’t the decision published by Thomas controlling? Are the concurrent opinions allowed or able to be used in future litigation?

      • Matt,

        There is a known and established “hierarchy” of authority in court. Majority opinions are the controlling precedent, and may be cited that way. Concurring opinions are (i) actually rarely cited, and (ii) when cited, usually cited to try to explain what the majority “really meant” (either to limit or expand the majority opinion). Dissenting opinions are often cited, usually by losers. They have exactly zero precedential authority.

        One of the things I like about Thomas’ opinion (the same reason I was so stoked about Benitez’ two opinions in California) is the he flat SCHOOLED the minority, and the lower courts, on the history. The first 33 pages are . . . *chef’s kiss*.

        They will, of course, TRY to shuck, jive, spin, evade, and escape, but Thomas left them remarkably little room to do so.

    • “Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”

      ‘Heller’ did speak on that, remember?

      “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
      limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
      limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
      the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.”

      15 *million*AR-pattern rifles in circulation meets that “in common use” requirement, handily. Semi-autos with detachable magazines also meet that standard…

  41. NFA and Gun Control Act 1968 need an in depth examination in light of this ruling (then throw them out in their entirety).

    • In depth examination?

      Some aspects of the NFA of 1934 WEREN’T EVEN DISCUSSED before being enacted.

      The NFA of ’34 should be abolished the same way prohibition was.

      If OSHA was around in 1934 they would have recommended suppressors be used to protect hearing. 🤔

  43. “…this doesn’t mean that anti-gun jurisdictions like New York, California, Hawaii and others will now be handing out concealed carry permits like candy. Expect them to put up barriers such as high fees and extensive training requirements…”

    Poll tax.

    (Mic drop…)

    • A leopard doesn’t change its spots. oppressing poc and the poor is what the wealthy billionaires that run the dnc do.

    • I expect them to race this to the bottom with Illinois. Then again even 16 hours training etc. didn’t stop a crap ton of people there from getting permits.

      We need to keep hammering that these sort of permitting systems are rooted in racist and classist evils as well as their own taint of corruption otherwise. Their roots are in slavery and jim crow. Not as direct as may issue carry but still there.

        • Only because the courts told them they had to. That said they have zero reciprocity and have arguably among the most stringent training reqs in the country. After this I’m sure they’ll get worse too just because Jaybee The Hut thinks it a good idea.

    • I’ve said it for a while. We’ll have nationwide constitutional carry by the end of Trumps second term. And joe burden has made Trumps second term a reality.

      • President Trump’s judge appointments will be the most important and biggest future obstacle for today’s socialist Progressive agenda in the United States.

        I will assume that the gun owners who suffer from “Trump derangement syndrome”. And refused to vote for Donald Trump’s re-election are not happy today. Because they are incapable of saying anything good about President Trump.

        Those gun owners are happy with Biden.

  45. Hopefully I will be able to carry in NJ soon. I work in NJ, live just outside Philly. I can’t carry to go to work, which makes me vulnerable during my daily commute.

    • According to anti-gun sentiment the issue is magically solved by u being defenseless.

  46. We haven’t heard from miner49er or dacian/albert hall.

    They must be waiting for their official line of comment from their paymasters.

      • It is my opinion that dacian/albert hall is mentally ill. Trolling is more and more an accepted warning sign of mental illness. Combine that activity with his self delusion and that he is a pathological liar and it is down right scary.

        My fear is that he will decide to further the cause by attacking a school.

    • Nah, they’re all applying Preparation H to all the butthurt that Thomas gave them. Then the probably got excited, and a circle jerk broke out.

    • I can picture them having an anxiety ridden tactical huddle in one of their mom’s basements bouncy house castles (if they’re ever allowed out) trying to decide how to frame their bullshit and frantically copy/pasting articles from Vogue and Anti Gun News Weekly. Window lickers.

  47. While we’re dishing out the kudos, let’s not forget Paul D. Clement, the lawyer who completely obliterated the anti-freedom advocates’ arguments. He absolutely killed it. Also, the NYS Rifle & Pistol Association gets credit along with — and I know this is going to gag a lot of you — the NRA.

    • Ralph,

      And I’m sure you’ve heard that he was “rewarded” for his efforts by Kirkland & Ellis, who told him he had to get rid of ALL 2A cases, and not take any more, or leave. He left, thank God. Clement did a great job, and he’s going to be SWAMPED with 2A cases in his new firm. Good on him!!

  48. Thank you to President George H.W. Bush for:
    Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Thank you to President George W Bush for:
    Justice Samuel Alito and Justice John Roberts

    Thank you to President Donald J Trump for:
    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Justice Amy Coney Barret

    • Waiting for you to thank Trump for banning all semi autos because now they are easily convertible to machine guns.

      These guys are not your friends and certainly not of gun rights. This just happened by accident, when they finally rule on bump stocks we will get some kind of idea exactly how screwed we are.

      Also do Hawaii next, there is absolutely nothing I want to see in New York.

      • California and NY have nothing on Hawaii. There are plenty of guns there locked up in the house. They don’t approve anyone for carry. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

      • Gun owners like you are just liars, you’ve always been Liars. You have never supported machine gun ownership for the General Public. That is why you and so many others said, “the bump stock was just a stupid idea”. “A waste of ammunition”. “Who would use such a thing???”

        People like you remind me of the church during the Dark Ages. When the new technology, called the printing press, allowed everyone to get a copy of the bible. And read it for themselves. Not just the church leadership. And they felt threatened by this new technology. And ordered the printing presses to be burned. You are exactly like those priests. Both of you are against new technology and easily dismiss it.

        It terrifies you that there could be Millions upon millions of new legal machine gun owners in the United States.

        • For ‘the church’ those weren’t the dark ages. But only for the church. Just sayin…

  50. Amendments as read by non-originalists:
    1st: You have freedom of speech, so long as your vocabulary consists only of those words that existed and were in common use in 1791. Likewise, you may only freely assemble in areas known to the founders in 1791. Gathering in the state of CA is wholly illegal (though I think COVID already corrected that). You may petition the government for a redress of grievances that occurred no later than 1791.

    3rd: Soldiers may be quartered in any house at any time, so long as the house was built after 1791

    4th: No warrant is needed to search or seize any property not owned prior to 1791

    5th: A person may be tried twice for the same crime, provided the crime occurred after 1791, and that the law they violated was added after 1791.

  51. OMG first Ohio and now New York.
    dacian poor dacian
    Theres going to be so much blood in the streets hes going to drown.
    Hey check it out Albert Hall , the Yankees are carrying gunms now.
    YaaaaaaHoooooo

    • 👍. Congrats on the ruling possum. Hope some of it rubs off up here. Let Freedom Ring.

    • I’ve heard it said that from orbit is the only way to be sure. Congrats on the ruling, jwm.

  53. Great news !

    I am not a lawyer but does this not clearly seem to be a shot across the bow of red flag laws? The part about the Sixth Amendment.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/06/23/scotus-gun-case-n2609212

    Justice Thomas also explained that the Second Amendment doesn’t take a back seat to other God-given rights defined by the Bill of Rights as belonging to the people and not to be infringed upon by the government:

    The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.

  54. My guess is that when Joe Bidens’ handler care-givers finish explaining to him what just happened with this decision he is not going to want his daily ice cream ration.

  55. 6 to 3, eh? I like those odds. However, this will bring the court-packers out of the woodwork, and there will likely be a pile of lawsuits and appeals to work through before this new law of the land has filtered down to every jurisdiction. Nevertheless, a good day. I wonder what Portman’s staff’s reply to my letter yesterday will be like in light of this decision. Not holding my breath.

  56. I Hope thousands of people contact the SAF to form a large class action style lawsuit, to seek millions in damages, for the rights the are about to Become deprived of… The governor of New York, the Attorney General of New York and the mayor of New York City have all stated they will ignore and fight the implementation of this Law of the Land… The supreme Court has spoken and there is now a supremacy clause in place…The violators of the civil right need to be punished and jailed…All members of the Executive branch must implement laws even if they don’t agree with them…Like it or not this is now the law of the land…

  58. I’m interested in hearing how this goes over in Hawaii. Also, congrats to you guys in the crazy districts on the mainland. Haz, let us know when they approve your carry permit.

    • It’s sitting in a Deputy’s desk trash can somewhere, methinks.

      I personally know several people who submitted their apps to LASD within a few weeks (before or after) I did. None of them have heard bupkiss.

  59. HOORAY for the N.Y. people. Now you can walk down the street and protect yourselves and your family.

  60. Heller was really effective. McDonald even more so. There was no need for further court review….except there was. States simply ignored Heller and McDonald, without repercussion. Buren seems yet only the beginning of another decade, or more, of infringements applied with impunity, requiring every infringement to be disputed in the courts. As is popular, “The ride is the punishment” for gun owners. Courts and States suffer no punishment for stonewalling the Supreme Court.

    Government is attracted to power (by any means necessary), like a moth to a flame. And moths near a flame must be eliminated one-at-a-time. Note that after all of human history, moths have yet to be eradicated.

    Resistance enrages enemies of liberty. Resistance to enemies of liberty simply serves as an encouragement to double down on efforts to limit, and eventually extinguish, liberty. This ruling does not prohibit, nor prevent the conversion of misdemeanors into full-blown felonies of the first order. Traffic tickets are the gateway to denial of the right for citizens to possess firearms.

  61. Geoff:

    “Does that qualify for ‘showing your work’?”

    No, because that system accomplishes no actual “weeding out”. The relevant “weeding out” is from possessing/carrying a firearm. Any of those “prohibited persons” who desire to acquire and carry a firearm can and still do.

    • “No, because that system accomplishes no actual “weeding out”.”

      Can we count the small number of correct denials as “weeding out”? Does “weeding out” mean 100% accurate, charges and trial?

      No, I don’t support background checks, but wondering if they are completely useless (and if useful at all, are BGCs acceptable as not being infringements)?

  62. Can we count the small number of correct denials as “weeding out”? Does “weeding out” mean 100% accurate, charges and trial?

    No, I don’t support background checks, but wondering if they are completely useless (and if useful at all, are BGCs acceptable as not being infringements)?

    I would argue: no.

    Do those NICS denials actually prevent the “prohibited person” from ultimately obtaining/using a firearm? Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is the case? The vast majority (80% or so) of criminals obtain their firearms through theft, private transfers (family/friends), and the black market. As such, they bypass the BGC system/checks entirely.

    We have decades of data that can only reasonably conclude that BGCs have been an abject failure in preventing criminals from obtaining/using firearms.

    • “We have decades of data that can only reasonably conclude that BGCs have been an abject failure in preventing criminals from obtaining/using firearms.”

      True, dat, but….

      I see two measurements of prevention: instant; completely. If my definition is that BGCs prevented a bad guy from legally purchasing a firearm, we have success because in the end, I don’t care if bad people in bad places have gund; I don’t go to bad places, and controlling firearms among the criminal elements is just too hard. If my definition of prevention is “always and forever”, then BGCs can never be “improved” enough to matter.

      Strange thing about today’s decision is that if non-prohibited persons have a right to “keep and bear arms” in or out of the home, what is the point in leaving permits and background checks in place? Such allowances still the innocent to prove they are innocent.

  63. @Walter E Beverly III
    “Sam, that is the way to justice system works.”

    Indeed.

    A whole passel of “gun people” seem to think that due to the Bruen decision, all the gun laws affected will suddenly disappear from “the books”. And we can exercise our 2A right without fear of punishment.

    • Sam I Am, If they do, they are in for a very rude awakening. Leftists are famous or should I say infamous for noting following the law.

Comments are closed.