Can the government stop you from carrying a concealed handgun in public? That’s the question before the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”
As the petitioners pointed out in their petition for writ of certiorari, “Perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question after this Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, is whether the Second Amendment secures the individual right to bear arms for self-defense where confrontations often occur: outside the home.” Petitioners argued that the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment do indeed secure this right.
On its face, this is a simple case. New York has had a handgun licensing system for more than 100 years. Nowadays, New York prohibits its citizens from carrying a handgun outside of their home without a license, and it requires permit applicants to convince a licensing officer they have “proper cause” to carry a concealed firearm.
In reality, unless they’re a celebrity, judge or other VIP, nearly all license applications are denied.
In his license request, petitioner Robert Nash cited “a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood and the fact that he had recently completed an advanced firearm safety training course.” The licensing officer denied Nash’s request, saying he failed to show “proper cause.”
Petitioner Brendan Koch said he applied for a license to “allow him to carry a firearm for self-defense.” Koch, too, cited a bevy of training courses he had taken in support of his license request.
The same licensing officer denied Koch’s request, stating he “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.”
The district court summarized: “Nash and Koch do not satisfy the ‘proper cause’ requirement because they do not ‘face any special or unique danger to [their] life.’”
Nash and Koch argued that the New York law violates their constitutional right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case joined by a dozen state firearms associations. The brief lays out the history of why concealed carry is a core Second Amendment right. Scores of other pro-gun rights groups also filed friend-of-the-court briefs. These groups are optimistic about this case. Otherwise, they argue, the Court’s conservative majority would not have agreed to hear the case.
But what would a victory look like?
Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president, Alan M. Gottlieb, said if the petitioners are victorious, there could be several likely outcomes – good, better, best, and outstanding.
“I believe this law will be overturned. I believe we are going to win. The question is how big we win,” Gottlieb explained.
“Lower than good,” Gottlieb said, “would be if the court finds the law unconstitutional, but that it applies only to the individual plaintiffs, and they send directions for New York to follow. That would be the lowest form of victory.”
A better victory, he said, would be if the court finds the New York law unconstitutional facially – unconstitutional on its face. Eight other states have similar “show cause” laws: California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey. All of their laws would be impacted by such a decision.
“But we’d really like the court to go further than that, and go to a ‘shall issue’ law – one that says if the applicant is not a prohibited individual, the government shall issue a license – because the ‘good cause’ requirement is unconstitutional and doesn’t work,” Gottlieb said. “Even better would be if they require a standard of review of heightened scrutiny, like strict scrutiny, because carrying a firearm outside the home is a core Second Amendment right.”
This scrutiny, Gottlieb said, would put the burden on the government to show why they should be allowed to infringe upon a right. It would require the government to show a court why lower levels of scrutiny couldn’t solve a potential public interest without infringing upon a constitutional right.
“Of course, they could expand our Second Amendment rights, which would affect other rights, not just carry laws,” Gottlieb said. “But that’s unlikely, since Chief Justice Roberts likes narrow decisions.”
Whatever the outcome, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is destined to become a landmark Second Amendment case. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.
The scenario I’m hoping for: 5-4, with Thomas writing the majority decision.
The scenario I expect: 6-3, with Roberts writing a majority decision that changes the status quo as little as possible.
“…a majority decision that changes the status quo as little as possible.”
Decisions before any court should apply directly, and only to those at issue. No case law should apply beyond actual contenders, not groups of contenders, i.e. no “class actions”, no application beyond the plaintiff and the defense. In the case of an individual suing a state, the state is a party, not every individual in the state. If the complainant wins, that is the extent of the ruling, not extension to all the individuals in the state? If the state wins, the application applies only to that single case; everyone else is free to be a complainant over the same issue, in a new trial/appeal.
What is the justification for such a theory of (non-existent) jurisprudence? Simple fairness. Individuals (no groups allowed) who spend the time, money, resources to bear the burden of a legal contention should be rewarded.
Simply because your rights are being violated in place X, and mine are being violated in place Y, neither of us should share the result of the trial/appeal. Doing so benefits the hangers-on above the person actually before the bar.
“Decisions before any court should apply directly, and only to those at issue. No case law should apply beyond actual contenders, not groups of contenders, i.e. no “class actions”, no application beyond the plaintiff and the defense.”
Are you suggesting that if a state permits people to enslave others in violation of the 13th amendment that each of those enslaved people must pursue legal action to secure their freedom?
Constitutional rights apply to ALL US citizens. A violation of an individual’s constitutional rights violates the constitutional rights of ALL. Similarly, protecting an individual’s constitutional rights should protect the constitutional rights of ALL.
“Are you suggesting that if a state permits people to enslave others in violation of the 13th amendment that each of those enslaved people must pursue legal action to secure their freedom?”
The question you ask is actually not possible, as open/state government sanction of slavery is not pervasive, nor routine.
Let’s use “civil asset forfeiture”*, triggered only by the suspicion that some (or multiple) assets of a person are a result of criminal action, and can be legally confiscated without warrant, arrest, trial, conviction.
Unless you are personally subjected to “civil asset forfeiture”, you have no standing, suffered no impact, lost nothing of value. But if I am the target of such confiscation of property, I have individual standing. If I lose at court, you remain unaffected (thus, lacking standing), but free to challenge the law if you are directly affected. If I win, I recover my assets, based on the outcome of trials and appeals connected solely to me.
When you are wrongly caught up in “civil asset forfeiture” you now have standing….and your own costs to bear in defending your right to criminal charge, and prosecution (your “day in court”). And/or your right to sue in civil court for recovery of your assets.
It is morally and ethically repugnant that you should piggy-back off my money and labor used to defend my right. Individuals have only those “rights” they can personally defend.
*The SC ruled that “civil asset forfeiture”, in all its grotesqueness, is constitutional, but limited as to the dollar amount allowed to be confiscated.
“The question you ask is actually not possible, as open/state government sanction of slavery is not pervasive, nor routine.”
And yet routine denial of carry permits is both routine and pervasive in states like Hawai’i and New York state?
“It is morally and ethically repugnant that you should piggy-back off my money and labor used to defend my right. Individuals have only those “rights” they can personally defend.”
I’m not sure if this is one of those internet jokes or just more ideas from an ancapistani who’s been hitting the bong.
The example of slavery that you refused to address was a valid one, as are things such as polltaxes and other relics of the Jim Crow era. If we follow your logic, the Government could easily write laws to deny everyone outside the DC beltway of all their Constitutional rights, and then anyone who wishes to have those rights has to individually spend a fortune in court to regain them. Not really sure where this logic is coming from, but I think it goes under the category of “half baked”. It’s not quite an SJW or fundamentalist departure from reality, but it’s trending that way.
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. If you’re serious then you think that Brown v Board of education should have applied only to the 20 children of the 13 plaintiffs?
If you do that makes you a very strange individual.
“If you’re serious then you think that Brown v Board of education should have applied only to the 20 children of the 13 plaintiffs?”
Actually, yes. Class-action suits, and nationwide declarations by courts are a convenience for the courts; avoiding being brought to a halt due to endless law suits over the point at issue.
The matter of Brown v. BOE was judicial interference in the legislative branch. In this land of “democracy” (majority rule), the minority could not gain the majority, so the courts were engaged to do what Congress couldn’t do. In simple terms, the actual majority of voters in the nation were comfortable with “separate, but equal” established by the SC ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision (isn’t it curious what it is we Americans believe are justly overturned prior SC decisions, while wailing about how Stare Decisis should stand forever?)
Both Plessy and Brown should have been applicable only to the plaintiffs, letting thousands and thousands of individual law suites assail the court system. (We should be very skeptical when courts establish a procedure that is convenient for the courts, because courts can undecide what is convenient at the drop of a hat)
If you want to be known as a defender of rights, there should be a price to pay for defending. Else, defense of rights becomes someone else’s problem, while we sit back and wait to “get a freebie” at someone else’s expense.
Note: Your are correct; I am a strange person. Ask anyone, even those who don’t know me.
Even if the ruling applies solely to the plaintiffs, it’s still a win. The courts would instantly be flooded with thousands (maybe millions?) of plaintiffs seeking the same relief. The lower courts would be obliged to follow the SCOTUS’s lead (not that the always do), but if the decision is worded strongly enough they would have a tough time deviating from it. Basically, it would create a real mess in the courts.
“The courts would instantly be flooded with thousands (maybe millions?) of plaintiffs seeking the same relief.”
Now, that would be a win.
Sam I Am,
There is a simple error with your assertion that court decisions should only apply to the actual plaintiffs who appear in person in government lawsuits.
The primary (perhaps only) legitimate role of courts is to resolve contract disputes.
Court cases about inalienable rights are contract disputes between “We the People” and government. The contract in dispute is the constitution which details exactly what “We the People” are contracting with government to do. Thus “We the People” are the plaintiff and government is the defendant and any court decision applies to the whole of “We the People” and government.
Otherwise, a court decision against government would only apply to the specific government employee named in the case and other government employees would be free to violate the court decision.
On another vein, requiring every single member of two corporations (with a combined total of 200,000 people) to be intimately involved in a court case is impossible. If the court decision only applies to the specific people of each corporation named in the case, then the rest of the people in both corporations are free to violate the court decision.
What you are claiming defeats the entire purpose of having courts and is therefore incorrect.
Is the arrangement which I just described above perfect? Far from it. As far as I can tell, it is the best that we can do in an imperfect world.
“Otherwise, a court decision against government would only apply to the specific government employee named in the case and other government employees would be free to violate the court decision.”
Precisely.
As explained to me some time ago, constitutional law is not purely contract law. When a government agency violates the constitution, “standing” is an important element in whether or not individuals can pursue remedy in court. That is, the plaintiff/appellant must be able to specifically identify the damage caused by the government, seek a specific remedy. The two parties are a government agency, and the plaintiff/appellant. Rulings should apply only to the parties of the suit.
The courts invented the concept of “class actions” as a convenience to the courts. As noted before, thousands of individual suits would bring the court system to a halt; good. Not only would a huge number of suits clog the courts, such a number would clog the infringing agency, as well; good. The logjam can be avoided by government not infringing.
As things stand, government can infringe everywhere, at once. This benefits only government. Forcing government to pay the price of infringements, everywhere, nearly at once would balance the equation: infringe, and your agency grinds to a halt. As it is, government needs fight only one battle.
If “We the People” are party to the “contract” of the Constitution, then, since we did not individually sign the contract, it must be our elected representatives who are responsible to sue government (themselves) as plaintiffs.
Just as democracy is supposed to be thwarted by a representative republic, it is the representatives of the people of the republic who should defend the rights of the individuals (the founders declared that government is established to protect the rights of individuals).
Again, why should you (whomever) be allowed to sit in the shade drinking Corona, while I labor and spend money, situating you to benefit without cost? As a plaintiff in a constitutional dispute with government, I do not act as your elected representative; I act for benefit of myself.
“…it is the best that we can do in an imperfect world.”
The world was imperfect when the founders wrote, “….in order to form a more perfect union”. We are supposed to continue working toward perfecting the union. The constitution contains the means for doing so.
We’ll probably be able to tell immediately if the decision is good or bad by which justice wrote the majority opinion.
Thomas or Alito – very, very good.
Gorsuch or Barrett – maybe very good
Roberts – bad
Any other justice – very, very bad
Roberts didn’t take the lead in Heller or McDonald, I doubt he will here. This simply is not his thing.
Roberts will write the decision. Mark my words. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Roberts will vote with the majority for the single purpose of keeping the decision for himself. If Roberts does not vote in the majority, Thomas decides who writes it. Roberts cannot allow that to happen.
“Roberts will vote with the majority for the single purpose of keeping the decision for himself. If Roberts does not vote in the majority, Thomas decides who writes it. Roberts cannot allow that to happen.”
Wait. Are you saying there are internal politics in SC decisions?
Oh my, how can that be?
But if Roberts writes a decision the others do not like, they do not have to join it, writing instead their own concurring opinions as to the result but not the reasoning. Or, if five all agree on the concurrence, then they can force Roberts’ hand. The risk, of course, is a fractured opinion that fails to provide strong guidelines for future decisions.
“But if Roberts writes a decision the others do not like, they do not have to join it…”
Correct. Roberts will write the decision as watered down as he can make it, while holding on to the other 5 votes. Just like Kennedy forced Scalia to water down Heller.
We may never know the internal debates that happen, or the range of possibilities this opinion goes through during that internal negotiation. All we get to see if the final result.
Roberts didn’t write the Heller decision, which was not just the most important 2nd Amendment case dealing with individual rights, but one of the biggest decisions in our history, period. Why didn’t he keep that decision for himself? This upcoming case will be a landmark but not on the level of Heller. He didn’t write the McDonald decision (landmark) and he didn’t even author one of the two concurring opinions in McDonald.
Believe it or not, Roberts isn’t a grandstander. He clerked under Rehnquist, who was the same way. Roberts has written some majority opinions in landmark cases. But he got out of the way on Heller, gay marriage, campaign finance.
Even if NYS Pistol & Rifle loses, and Roberts voted for them to lose, I doubt he’d write the opinion. The guy simply isn’t into guns.
“I doubt he’d write the opinion. The guy simply isn’t into guns.”
The court is vastly different today than it was for Heller, and even McDonald. Even if Roberts couldn’t care less about “guns,” I believe he does see his primary job as maintaining the status quo on these high-pressure issues. Even if that means sacrificing the Second Amendment.
He (Roberts) believes that if Thomas writes the kind of opinion that he (Thomas) truly believes is required by the Constitution, the nation is one step closer to the next civil insurrection.
Can the government stop you from carrying a concealed handgunm in public.
No it cant, but it can damn sure incarcerate you for it.
And a cold, damp burrow beats a cold, damp, concrete cell any day of the week…
What exactly is it that opposes The Second Amendment? That would be Gun Control. And what is Gun Control? Let’s break it down for the court…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History clearly confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
“Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing”
actually it’s more a bollshevik thing.
ant7 is back and defending fascism, as usual. He and lil’d should be best buds.
This post misstates the issue before the court. Although the petitioner ASKED that the Court address “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense,”the actual issue that the Court agreed to hear is whether there is a right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home, a far narrower inquiry that may or may not address the general issue of the existence of a right to carry, openly or concealed.
There are two essential questions that the Court must address: 1) Does the 2A extend to carrying concealed weapons for self defense outside the home? and 2) If the 2A does guarantee such a right, is the right subject to “reasonable regulation” by the State (i.e., discretionary issuance of licenses) in the interest of public safety, or must issuance of licenses be on a “shall issue” basis (i.e., following what the D.C circuit did)?
The big hurdle for the first question is the fact, as detailed by Scalia in Heller, is that a number of states dating back almost 200 years have upheld concealed carry bans, with the caveat that one of those cases required that open carry be permitted. Will the Court recognize that open carry of firearms in urban areas is not the norm, as it was 200 years ago, and that concealed carry is today more and more common? Will it also recognize–unlikely to be sure–that the GFSZA bans open carry of firearms within 1000 feet of educational facilities, all but banning urban open carry?
I think that this is a tougher case than the poster would have it.
Mark…I tried to help people like you who complicate simple math.
Once the ink dried long ago the 2A guarantees I can keep and bear arms. That meant I can keep a firearm in my purse so I can bear said firearm. Yes or No? Praytell if I am not a criminal then what gives anyone the right to nitpick and treat me like a criminal?
Do you call it justice when a court provides standing for Gun Control knowing Gun Control is a diabolical agenda rooted in racism and genocide? How could such a sick agenda ever be in the interest of public safety? Wasn’t the interest of public safety the premise for Gun Control in the first place?
I suggest you sit down and cease giving Gun Control standing via courtroom drama and kings in black robes. Courts need to be behind laws concerning criminals while keeping the rights of the law abiding off the table.
Never forget Gun Control goes hand in hand with slave shacks, nooses, burning crosses, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and the like. Failure to define Gun Control Rot is to condone it and certainly not in the interest of public safety.
You can believe what you like, but that does not mean that the police or the courts won’t disagree with you and force you to suffer the consequence in any one of the states that requires licensure to carry a concealed weapon. I live in one of those states, and although I might get off with a misdemeanor, I could easily lose my professional license as a consequence of an arrest and conviction, and worse case scenario I face a large fine, a period of incarceration, loss of my career and probably a lot more, a lifetime loss of all gun rights, and my wife would end up in a nursing home. Thanks but no thanks.
I am not “giving standing” to anyone. I am merely explaining where we stand today at the US Supreme Court, which will decide this case one way or another whether you like it or not.
Yes, and even lower courts have flat out ignored the reasoning behind the Heller and McDonald decisions, saying – eh, a balancing test has problems but so what, we’re gonna apply that standard anyway. Tyrannical jerks.
We need judges to interpret laws properly, there is no other way around it. Too many do not. Trump changed this substantially in four years, I wish he could have kept it going because it wasn’t enough.
I would be shocked if SCOTUS didn’t side with NY Rifle & Pistol. I think that will happen. How they do it is an utter mystery. Heller and McDonald left questions on the table, I bet that will be the case here. But a victory here will be huge. If our side can keep getting incremental victories over time, that’s still good.
The second amendment protects TWO rights.
First – the right of citizens to form a militia where and when necessary.
Second – the individual right to bear arms.
If the second amendment does NOT permit citizens to bear arms outside the boundaries of their homes, how can citizens exercise their first right to form a militia?
It is absurd to think that the founders only intended for militias to be formed in living rooms.
“If the second amendment does NOT permit citizens to bear arms outside the boundaries of their homes, how can citizens exercise their first right to form a militia?”
You are supporting the thinking that the right to bear arms outside the home is dependent upon an organized, recognized militia must first exist. This makes “the second right” dependent upon the “first right”; the holy grail of all the gun grabbers. I know this was not your intent.
The key to interpretation lies in the rules of syntax at the time of the founding. Since modern Americans long ago abandoned explicit writing as a skill set, the syntax of the founders is simply declared not dependent on the form of writing at the founding, but the form of writing today. The syntax of the time of the founding allowed for dependent clauses to begin, support or end a statement. The simple way to separate dependent from independent clauses was to simply separate the clauses. That clause which makes sense without the dependent clauses dominates the meaning. The test would have been to ask, “Does the clause ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ have stand-alone meaning?”. The next test would be to ask, “Does the clause, ‘ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’ have stand-alone meaning?”
The favorite argument of gun grabbers is to declare that the first clause of the Second Amendment establishes the condition under which “shall not be infringed” applies, magically making the independent clause become the dependent clause.
A well regulated Militia = The People, self-armed and proficient with said arms
being necessary to the security of a free State = a prerequisite for freedom
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms = operative clause
shall not be infringed = proscriptive injunction on any gov’t coercion vs. previous declarative statements
Everything that has been “interpreted” that runs counter to the above must be expunged in order to uphold The Constitution as written. It’s a travesty that it has been allowed to endure this long.
Anything less will demonstrate a failure of SCOTUS to do their job.
Mark N.,
Uh oh. That important detail that you provided does not sit well with me.
If the question before the Court was the simple original question (does the Second Amendment apply outside the home), it would have been exceedingly easy for the Court to say, “yes,” and it would have had far reaching positive implications for advocates of our inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Bonus: it would have been impossible for any naysayers to produce anything even remotely resembling a coherent dissent.
Instead, the question before the Court is whether the Second Amendment protects carrying concealed handguns outside the home. That is problematic for Second Amendment advocates. There are legal arguments/precedents for claiming that the Second Amendment does not apply to concealed carry. Furthermore, even if the Court said, “yes,” that does not protect openly carrying handguns outside the home nor does it protect keeping and bearing rifles or anything else outside the home (such as knives or swords, whether carried openly or concealed).
In the immortal words of the Star Wars franchise, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
Can the government stop you from doing anything?
They can punish you after the fact if caught but unless they freeze you cryogenically, chain you to a wall or preemptively execute you they really can’t stop you from doing anything.
The “ show proper cause “ is Not statewide . My whole family, most friends and co workers have NYS permits, none had to show proper cause . Future son in law just got his , you do,list “ use “ he put self defense and recreation.
Don’t get me wrong NYS sucks for many reasons and more so for gun owners , it’s just everything I read about NYS and guns is always full of errors .
New York is an amalgam of errors so can’t blame them too much when different townships in the same county can have different processes. Or different judges that have wildly different ideas of just cause. Or you are in city limits and not wealthy. We have a bit more stupid than can reasonably be expected to keep track of.
To add to the above comments: Pistol permits in NY are issued by county, and all must honor a relatively onerous state permitting requirement. However, 2A friendly counties usually interpret the process in a less rigid way than 2A hostile counties. In virtually all counties, applicants do need to provide some written justification for why they want/need a permit (the “show proper cause” requirement); some judges – because judges make the final determination – barely care what is written here, while others parse it and deny on a whim.
The article also states: “In reality, unless they’re a celebrity, judge or other VIP, nearly all license applications are denied.”
This is completely false outside of NYC (since I never lived in NYC, I don’t know how true it is there; NYC has a whole different regime for pistols and permits than the rest of the state).
Judges in a given county may deny an application for just about any reason, however some judges are pro 2A and rarely deny, while others find any excuse at all. For most upstaters in good legal standing, obtaining a permit is an exercise in hoop jumping, careful writing, and patience, but the permit is typically granted in the end. Some judges append restrictions to permits which are not codified in NY law, but can get one’s permit revoked if violated: for example “for travel to and from range only,” etc. Other judges an counties typically just issue unrestricted permits.
Getting a permit in NYS depends a lot on where you live, more than who you are and how safe you are likely to be with a firearm. It will be hard for NY to defend this patchwork, ad hoc permitting scheme if any real light is shown on it at all, but I’m not holding my breath.
California is the same way. Almost all counties from Sacramento north are “virtual shall issue” that accept “self defense” as “good cause”, or maybe a bit more, along with the required class work and shooting proficiency. Most of the Bay Area is either no issue or rare issue, as is LA and environs (though that has softened just a bit under the current Sheriff). The Central Valley is mostly virtual shall issue. (They can’t call it shall issue since this is a may issue state.)
This map is informative as to May-Issue States that are often Shall-Issue in practice. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concealed_carry_across_USA_by_county.svg
That patchwork in NY looks about right. It’s a really bizarre and confusing landscape.
It’s a little confusing between California and New York.
In California, if you can get a permit at any county you can carry it all through the state even in the no issue areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
In New York, when you get your permit upstate you still cannot enter New York a city as it does not honor the upstate permits
That is based on a specific statute that allowed NYC (which had the votes to get what it wanted) to go its own way. That NYS permit is good in all counties EXCEPT NYC.
“That is based on a specific statute that allowed NYC (which had the votes to get what it wanted) to go its own way. That NYS permit is good in all counties EXCEPT NYC.”
That is the sort of thing you get when states permit cities to gain “home rule” status.
NY is totally fvcked. NY City has Home Rule, making it a state within the state. Which means NYC is not required to recognize permits from any NY State issuers, and doesn’t. What a fuster cluck.
You really wanna know what a SCOTUS gun rights victory would look like? If we aren’t stabbed in the back by Roberts and his cronies, that’s a victory.
@Geoff “A day without a demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine” PR
“And yet routine denial of carry permits is both routine and pervasive in states like Hawai’i and New York state?”
Yet, each denial is an individual matter; an individual abuse of government power. Each person denied a permit has standing for suit against the government. Since my application for carry permit was not denied (due to not being located in Hawaii, or NYS), I have no standing to be part of any of the individual lawsuits that may arise in challenging the infringement. I should not be allowed blanket benefit at no cost to me.
@Peter Gunn
“Anything less will demonstrate a failure of SCOTUS to do their job.”
No argument.
@De Facto
“The example of slavery that you refused to address was a valid one,…”
Not at all….slaves were not citizens, thus could not press cases before the SC (freed slaves were no longer slaves). Cannot use a moot point to prove a point. I did, however, posed a question that is alive today, (not 156yrs ago) a question that is akin to slavery, wherein citizens are subject to deprivation of property without due process (clearly). Persons subject to confiscation of property without a criminal charge are subjects, at best.
As to the poll tax, or any other group suit, each infringement of rights protected by the constitution is an individual infringement, and each individual should be (is) responsible for protecting their rights.
So, again, where is the equity, morality in allowing you to do nothing, yet receive a benefit because of my labor and expense? Seems to be a whole new arena of welfare.
Respectfully: no.
An outstanding victory would be for the Court to observe that strict scrutiny standards apply to the Second Amendment as they do to any other Constitutional right, that the licensing schemes in question along with all other restrictive states are really deliberate infringements upon otherwise absolute Second Amendment rights with inherently racist roots, that they are grossly ineffective to their intended purpose and do not even have a rational basis and are therefore completely Unconstitutional. Bonus if they observe that states which have gone to Constitutional Carry have not, in fact, turned into the wild west or a bloodbath as prophesied by the gun control fanatics and that the licensing schemes serve no useful purpose at all and are therefore struck down.
Because, seriously, what have gun control schemes in Democrat enclaves really accomplished other than to empower criminals?
Baltimore is a great example: they have a similar permitting regime to New York and yet every year they are at or nearly at the highest murder rate in America.
“Baltimore is a great example: they have a similar permitting regime to New York and yet every year they are at or nearly at the highest murder rate in America.”
Because Trump and his supporters are running criminals out of towns.
It’s not a right if you can only exercise it if you have a reason distinguished from ordinary citizens.
imagine any other right treated that way, such as having to have a justification to be permitted to speak, distinguished from ordinary citizens justification for speaking.
if you need permission to exercise a right its not a right but rather a privilege.
Hey Guys, i’m making $4000 per month with this awesome home based system, enough for me to make a living.
You don’t need to invest anything, It’s totally FREE! you just have to download it, here’s the link… http://www.jobs70.com
“Expands rights”? Am I the only one a little unimpressed with that verbiage? Either it’s a right, or it’s not. Either you have it, or you do not.
Comments are closed.