Supreme Court protest demonstration
Courtesy Kevin Hulbert

By Larry Keane

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and a decision will likely come next June at the end of the court’s current term. Early reactions suggest the high court is wary of New York’s restrictive “may issue” concealed carry law and is likely to strike it down as unconstitutional.

That would be the biggest victory for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners since the court’s Heller decision more than a dozen years ago.

The Oldest Right Guaranteed

The Second Amendment was in the bloodstream of the earliest Americans before it was adopted within the Bill of Rights in 1791. Jonathan Turley wrote in a Fox News op-ed before the Supreme Court heard the NYSRPA v. Bruen arguments that the right predates the founding of America.

“There are few constitutional rights that have been debated so long in this country as gun rights. Indeed, before other Englishmen were given a written guarantee of the right to bear arms, colonists in Virginia in 1607 were given such a written guarantee by the Crown,” Turley noted.

As the court in Heller noted, the Second Amendment didn’t create the pre-existing common law rights to “keep and bear arms,” it protected them by enshrining them in the Bill of Rights. Heller also made clear that the right to “bear arms” means to carry them on your person for self-defense. The Second Amendment is not confined to one’s home.

Today there remain eight states that limit the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits based on “may issue” circumstantial rules or an official’s discretion. The inconsistency of requiring law-abiding American to obtain a permit has created problems from coast to coast and mostly by the unlawful behavior of those “approving” permits, not the law-abiding citizens applying for them.

In California, a “may issue” state with strong gun control laws, corruption is rampant. The District Attorney in Santa Clara County indicted four people, including within the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office, of bribery and conspiracy. In a higher profile case, Apple, Inc.’s Chief Security Officer was indicted last year on similar bribery charges. He promised 200 iPads to a sheriff’s office in exchange for four concealed weapon permits for Apple employees.

The “may issue” corruption is rampant in New York as well, where NYSRPA v. Bruen originated. Federal prosecutors uncovered a pay-to-play scheme within the New York Police Department’s licensing division where workers were paid thousands of dollars to rubber-stamp carry permits and four officers were arrested. In these “shall issue” states, it’s too easy for bureaucrats to play “Constitutional rights for me, not for thee.”

What They’re Saying

Reactions following oral arguments in NYSRPA v. Bruen last week were quick. The decision is months away but based on the oral argument it seems likely that the law will be struck down. That’s the feeling from all sides based on media reports.

A headline from The Hill reads, “Supreme Court seems wary of NY gun limits.” During the hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned New York’s solicitor general why the discretionary law should stand. “Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself? With any constitutional right, if it’s up to the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.”

Stephen Halbrook in the Wall Street Journal agreed, asking and answering, “When is a Constitutional right not a right? When you need an official’s approval to exercise it. That’s what New York’s pistol permit law does.”

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for permit applicants and NYSRPA and echoed that thinking. He told the the Court, “At the end of the day, I think what it means to give somebody a constitutional right is that they don’t have to satisfy a government official that they have a really good need to exercise it or they face atypical risks.”

New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, a staunch gun control supporter who wasted no time implementing more gun control laws on New Yorkers, voiced her fear with the possible outcome of the case. The governor worried, “The spectacle of thinking New Yorkers can walk around with a gun concealed on our subways and into our delis and into our restaurants and into our entertainment venues—that is not the New York I want to live in.” If she followed the case proceedings, she’d have her answer.

Justice Samuel Alito asked N.Y. Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, “How many illegal guns were seized by the New York Police Department last year? All these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed?”

Even the Washington Post opinion page, no posterboard bastion of gun rights, lamented the Court’s possible decision. “The Supreme Court is apparently preparing to send us a message: No matter where you live, no matter what you and your neighbors feel, you’ll have to live with the idea that just about anyone who wants to will be able to carry a gun in your community.”

Americans are on a historic streak of buying firearms. Industry data shows the gun owning population is the most diverse ever and growing by the millions. As more states have adopted concealed carry, the number of carry permit holders has increased seven-fold in the last 20 years and a major reason law-abiding Americans give for purchasing their first firearm is for self-defense.

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to solidify their right to do so and hand down a major rebuke to bureaucrats who feel it’s their privilege to deny that right.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

100 COMMENTS

  1. Hey hope for the best. Prepare for the scam. Happened in Chiraq(despite the erroneous BS seen on here & fakebook).

      • “the mere fact “May Issue” is discriminatory is reason enough to strike it down…..”

        Tut, tut, tut. The SC arrogated to itself the power to amend the constitution from the bench, such as the judicially-invented concept of “compelling government interest”, which gives the central government carte blanche to create new government power without even a “by your leave” to the constitution.

        In essence, the SC relegates the states, and the public, to serfdom when properly presented with a governmental “compelling interest”. The concept is simply a convenience of time because constitutional amendments are too cumbersome to deal with a world of constant urgencies.

      • “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

        • Perhaps you should read the Heller case. All nine justices agreed that the Second protects an individual right, not a collective right. To HAVE a militia and to provide for its training (regulation) requires that “the people” (not the states) have a right to keep and bear arms.

        • “….the right of the people….”
          It remains a scientific fact that marxists aren’t people, though. They’re demons from hell.

        • Think they were talking about who makes up the militia and how it has nothing to do with the national guard.

        • The way I see it, 2A allows for the regulation of the militia, not the regulation of the firearms they might be carrying. In other words, when the sergeant says “left face”, everyone faces left. That’s a well-regulated militia. Pray tell, what does that have to do with firearms?

        • “2A allows for the regulation of the militia”

          the state militias were always more or less regulated, long before the 2nd. in stating ‘well-regulated” the writers were emphasizing actual militia, not mob or loose collection of random individuals, on the model of the greek city states they were imitating.

          “not the regulation of the firearms they might be carrying”

          no regulations (if by that you mean rules or laws) would have been relevant. everyone had what they had – muzzle-loaders.

          “In other words, when the sergeant says “left face”, everyone faces left. That’s a well-regulated militia.”

          yes. “well-regulated” meant well-drilled, well-practiced, well-led, well-disciplined, well-controlled. not some guy standing around saying “I’m the militia, right here myself.”

        • rant7, Again, have you bothered to READ (do you know the meaning of the word?) the Heller, McDonald or Wren decisions? Apparently not, nor do you understand what a preamble does in communication.
          When you say “before the 2nd Amendment state militias were regulated”, what “state militias”? There were none once the Revolutionary War was won. So what if they had muzzle loaders? I have a red hot news flash for you. Repeating rifles were in use during the 1700’s although they were expensive. It seems you know very little about the history of firearms. Seems that blows your “they had muzzle loaders” (and muzzel loaders is two words, unhyphenated) all to hell. Not to mention you have no clue how to use proper grammar, capitalization, punctuation etc.

        • All righty, then; You can copy-and-paste right up there with the best of ’em, including Derpian and Minor69er.

          Now that you’ve copied-and-pasted, as if you are actually accomplishing something thereby, why not now come forth and explain it all to us? TELL us what constitutional scholars have been wracking their brains over for a century or more! EXPLAIN how you, and only you, have divined the actual meaning of these 27 words so that we all may understand! Edify the Supreme Court, so that its members can properly understand the Amendment, and decide fairly, justly, and equitably.

          Or just sit there with your mouth open, proud that you’ve copied-and-pasted something as if it had some esoteric meaning and import, offering nothing new but your own opinion, which is very much like a rectal sphincter–everybody’s got one one, and all of them tend to smell.

    • rant7, for your edification, again, the “well regulated militia” is the PREAMBLE to the 2nd Amendment. Here is a definition of the word, PREAMBLE:
      pre·am·ble
      /ˈprēˌambəl/
      Learn to pronounce
      noun
      a preliminary or preparatory statement; an introduction.
      “what she said was by way of a preamble”
      LAW
      the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.

      Do you need further clarification? The right to bear arms is a right of all the people as defined in the Constitution, Heller and McDonald. Have you bothered to read either?

      • “a preliminary or preparatory statement; an introduction”

        a context. not something to be ignored, but to justify the following statement.

        the reason the modern right reads that and simply doesn’t see it is because the modern right conceives of patriotism and citizenship, as being isolate and individual, whereas the writers of the 2nd saw individuals as participating in their towns and states and militia as a matter of course for all civilized men. the writers would have seen the modern right as savages and would have told them to “go west”. so the modern right reads “well-regulated militia” and draws a complete blank, and reads “security of a free state” and sees “my security” – so they think the 2nd means they have and carry and use guns as they personally please while the citizenship context is stripped away and discarded.

        • rant7, More horse pucky. It is not a “context”. Again, have you bothered to read the Heller or McDonald decisions. It is apparent that you have not or are ignoring whatever you might have read. The 2nd Amendment was written in the 18th century just after the Constitution. The Founding Fathers wrote both the Constitution and the 10 Amendments to be followed as written, not embellished by someone after the fact. At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment the entire populace was considered to be the “militia”. The 2nd Amendment was NOT written in “modern times”.It was written as you well know in 1792 or there abouts. The 2nd says nothing about “security of a free state”. It does however imply the safety and security of the individual. There is no “use guns as they personally please” as you try to imply other than to secure their individual persons in a lawful manner.

        • rant7, the Supreme Court says it is NOT, which is the LAW of the land. Again, I ask, have you bothered to READ the Heller and McDonald decisions.
          I have repeatedly pointed out that the Founding Fathers considered the entire population as the “militia” as does the Supreme Court. You keep harping on “modern”. Sorry, but the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were NOT written in “modern” times. For about the 5th time, the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were written to be FOLLOWED AS WRITTEN.

        • “I have repeatedly pointed out that the Founding Fathers considered the entire population as the ‘militia’”

          more exactly every able-bodied white male between 16 and 60 was in considered to be obligated to participate in their local militia, just like the greek city states they were modeling. the 2nd “right to keep and bear arms” presumes it is in a well-regulated militia.

          “as does the Supreme Court.”

          because the definition of citizen has changed.

          “You keep harping on ‘modern’”

          because the modern view, where the individual stands alone and above the state, is presumed in all modern discussions of the 2nd. the writers would have rejected this in toto – to them the individual lives and acts and has his support within his state. the writers would have thought the modern right to be savages and told them to “go west” – and for the mountain men in their states, that’s exactly what they said. and that’s where the modern right is morally – with those mountain men.

        • rant7, FINALLY you admit that the entire population was the “militia” as described in the 2nd Amendment. Again, the Constitution was written to be followed as WRITTEN. You apparently think, mistakenly I might add, that the Constitution is a “live breathing document”. Pray tell? How can ink and paper breath? The definition of citizen has been the same since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the 10 Amendments.
          “Modern” has ZERO to do with the reading and following of the Constitution. Again, you allude to your mistaken ‘belief’ that the Constitution is a live breathing document. Again, since when does ink and paper breath? The Founding Fathers believed in the individual being superior to the “state” (i.e.: the government) and that the “state” was subject to the Constitution and the will of the people. People who own firearms are not “savages” as you allude to. We are God fearing, law abiding citizens. It’s your ANTIFA and BLM thugs who are the criminal element to which you want to attribute the rest of us. To hear you say it, the American citizen is not to be trusted to be able to handle firearms. As there are millions of firearms owned by the citizens lawfully, and damn few are used illegally, your premise is full of holes.

        • on terms of “militia”…think more of a western posse…a group of armed citizens coming together for a collective purpose…the National Guard is, in reality…an arm of the federal govt. as it can be nationalized and placed under their control at any time…

    • The 1st Amendment doesn’t say anything about the internet, yet here you are. From what “government” agency (city, county,state,federal) did you get your permission slip permit to post on the internet?

      The 2nd amendment is an individual right, period. Get over it and move on to your next contrived rant.

      • “The 2nd amendment is an individual right, period”

        the writers would not have understood your statement – they understood the right to operate within a community and to be exercised in a militia. but the modern right has been well-trained to reject community and to stand alone – where they will be picked off individually at leisure.

        • rant7, On the contrary. The Founding Fathers were very succinct in their writings. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers? You see, again, as I have previously stated and as is stated in the Heller and McDonald decisions, the Founding Fathers believe that the “militia” included each and every citizen.
          You keep referring to “MODERN”. The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment among others were not written in modern times. The Founding Fathers wanted and believe that the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment be followed as WRITTEN, not as you “modernly” interpret. For about the third or fourth time, I recommend that you READ the Heller and McDonald decisions.

    • Yes the constitution of the United States does say that , and by appearances does seem to make one think in a “well regulated militia”.
      What does your States constitution say, that’s the difference.

      Think outside the box we are building.

      • posssum Who makes up the militia? It seems in those times and we must go with the INTENT of the Founding Fathers, they referred to the “militia” as the population. Maybe you should come back inside the “box”?

        • “Who makes up the militia?”

          what does “well-regulated” mean? the militia is not just a bunch of guys sitting at home, a militia is an organization. else it’s just a mob.

        • rant7, I have clearly stated on a multitude of occasions that the Founding Fathers considered the entire population, i.e.: “We The People” constituted the “militia”. You continue to harp on the “modern” interpretation of the word militia.
          For the fifth time, the Constitution wasn’t written yesterday. It was written in the 18th Century. It was written to be followed as WRITTEN, not as you want it to read.
          Have you bothered to read the Heller or McDonald decisions or are you just ignoring them and the Court’s decisions?

        • My states 4 Ammendment. Ratified 1861
          Individual right to bear arms, armies.
          A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose, but standing armies , in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
          No confusion there.
          Had the founders known what a cluster fuck the word militia would have caused they may have worded it differently.

    • rant7, Again with the “well regulated militia”? Have you bothered ye to read the Heller and McDonald decisions.

      • really doesn’t matter…a “militia” needs to be interpreted loosely…a group of armed citizens coming together for the common defense…they can and probably should be under civil authority, when available…or they can form on their own if need be…which is exactly what we did back in the sixties when our neighborhoods were threatened…or think of a group of neighbors protecting their property after a natural disaster…or something as simple as a group of Koreans firing from their rooftops…the only common “regulation” is they do is they do this in a lawful manner…and should be primarily defensive in nature….

  3. Going to admit up front that the current article/post is being used as a springboard to a different, yet germane, subject about SCOTUS.

    Scenario: SCOTUS decides that 2A is a constitutionally protected natural, human, and civil right, therefore no law may restrict that right. That any change must be established by an amendment to the constitution. That no restrictions may be accomplished through routine legislation.

    Then…SCOTUS declares that abortion is a constitutionally protected natural, human and civil right, therefore no law may restrict that right. That any change must be established by an amendment to the constitution. That no restrictions may be accomplished through routine legislation.

    Assuming Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, all voted for both decisions, how then do we rate them as being “conservative”, or not?

    • Who cares? Why do they have to be one or the other? If you don’t want judges to legislate from the bench, then they must be nonpartisan, right?

      • “If you don’t want judges to legislate from the bench, then they must be nonpartisan, right?”

        In a perfect world. However, potential judicial appointees are selected by politicians, recommended by politicians, confirmed by politicians. There is no way appointed judges cannot be partisan, so the distinction between “liberal” and “conservative” becomes an important factor in how judges are evaluated as favoring one political constituency, or another.

        • Do not count your chickens before your eggs hatch. At this point there is no Yes. What is on the horizon is, “They Should.” And of course it would be preposterous to rule otherwise.

          The Second Amendment has a long history showing it is rooted in Life and Freedom. On the other hand Gun Control has a long history showing it is rooted to racism and genocide. The duty of The USSC is to Support and Defend The Constitution of The United States from enemies both foreign and domestic. That certainly includes the nazi and racist based Rot embedded in each and every form of Gun Control.

        • “On the other hand Gun Control has a long history showing it is rooted to racism and genocide”

          very long. 2400 years.

        • ” There is no way appointed judges cannot be partisan ”

          Au contraire. SC judges are appointed for life, with virtually no means of recall. Once the appointment is confirmed, they are not beholden to anyone and are free to pursue the law as they see it. Something that has worked both ways over time — so called conservative judges miraculously go liberal once installed on the bench, and vice versa.

  4. “how then do we rate them as being ‘conservative’, or not?”

    we rate them confused. being armed, in and of itself, harms or threatens no-one, but abortion kills a human being without just cause. governments are formed to secure rights.

  5. From the article:

    “When is a Constitutional right not a right? When you need an official’s approval to exercise it.”

    Welcome to California. Four months since I submitted my CCW application to LASD, after Villanueva famously told the world he’s now issuing permits. Four months, and nothing. Other people I know who submitted their own applications before I did are also still waiting to hear anything.

    When I applied for my non-resident permit from a neighboring state, the entire process took only a single day. Classroom lecture, shoot test, application, trip to the Sheriff station, photo, fingerprints, etc. A long 9 hours, but a single day nevertheless. In Los Angeles, we’re learning it takes a LOT longer, if it ends up happening at all.

    May issue, indeed.

    • We don;t need a permit here, but you can get a permit for reciprocity reasons which is basically the only reason the state still issues them on request.

      But, when you do go get one ya get the finger prints run and paperwork submitted then into class, then into the firing range. If the background checks out they send it to you in the mail. I’ve never heard of anyone that did not receive their permit within 5 days in the mail.

    • Way up north, with few exceptions, you take the class, get your live scan before you apply, and then submit. You typically get an appointment with a deputy in a few weeks. “Self defense” = “good cause.”

      • Even farther up North, with NO exceptions, you take no class, get no live scan, make no application, and submit no application. You find a gun that you like, and you carry it. The End. And they lived happily ever after.

        Now, if you really MUST travel through a fascist state that demands obeisance to the Government Gun Gods, you CAN ‘apply,’ and get fingerprinted and photographed, take your little class, shoot some holes in a paper target, manage not to shoot yourself or a bystander (innocent, we assume), pay $50, and you will get your Government Permission slip with ‘reciprocity.’ Some of the time. Depending upon where you go.

        But that’s only if you really want to get one; Otherwise, see the first paragraph for full instructions.

        Just remember to bring your rowboat and hip waders; The gutters can be treacherous when deep with blood, and the current is quite swift. /sarc.

        • requirements vary…getting a FLA permit was more hassle and expense than it was worth…but a PA permit requires nothing more than filling out a form, plunking down 20 bucks and getting your picture taken..and even that is under attack in the state legislature where there is a strong push for constitutional carry…

  7. The new governor of NY State said :

    “The spectacle of thinking New Yorkers can walk around with a gun concealed on our subways and into our delis and into our restaurants and into our entertainment venues—that is not the New York I want to live in.”

    Good, move then. And take everyone who thinks like you do with you, if you don’t mind. If Europe is so much better, pack your luggage and immigrate.

    And don’t let the door hit you on the way out, OK? 😉

    • I have to wonder about that statement, too. A Lefty might get worked up over the sight of thousands of guns visible because of OWB open carry, but concealed means…well…concealed, yes? If nobody knows, then nobody knows.

      I’m carrying under my shirt right now in the office as I write this, and have been for almost three years. Nobody can see, and therefore nobody has ever known.

      • “If nobody knows, then nobody knows.”

        Not the way it works.

        The point is, while there is no way to know how many gangers and criminals carry concealed, allowing law abiding people to even possess guns, much less carry, increases the number of people who might snap, and start shooting everything in sight. The vast majority of people in NYC have no reason to believe they are endangered by gangers and criminals, everyone in NYC is endangered by everyone else having guns.

        The “guv” doesn’t mind living in an NYC where she doesn’t know how many people have guns, she fears knowing how many people legally have guns.

        • The vast majority of people don’t just “snap” spontaneously. Yes, road rage happens, but mass shootings are almost always planned well in advance. The only unplanned ones I can think of are after hours and alcohol fueled by someone who thinks he has been “disrespected.” It seems that the only other people who “start shooting everything in sight” are NYPD officers subduing a suspect.

        • @Sam,

          Let’s change some words in your statement as a thought exercise:

          “…allowing law abiding people to even possess guns cars, much less carry drive, increases the number of people who might snap, and start shooting running over everything in sight.”

          or

          “…allowing law abiding people to even possess guns matches, much less carry, increases the number of people who might snap, and start shooting burning everything in sight.”

        • “The ‘guv’ doesn’t mind living in an NYC where she doesn’t know how many people have guns, she fears knowing how many people legally have guns”

          no, she fears the people knowing. knowing that they have power and responsibility – and can exercise it. that’s what she fears.

        • The circular logic of “there’s no way to know so there’s no reason to think” does pretty well sum up how liberals seem to process the world around them.

          Though I’d argue that since they constantly try to have it both ways the statement can be truncated to “there’s no reason to think”.

      • “A Lefty might get worked up over the sight of thousands of guns visible because of OWB open carry, but concealed means…well…concealed, yes?”

        My fantasy decision on the 2A case before the Court is that Leftist Scum states are forced to go shall-issue on non-criminal applicants.

        *But*…

        The SCotUS leaves them a nasty little land mine : States may choose open or concealed carry, but they must choose one, the other, or both.

        Then California puts it up for voter referendum. Imagine the hilarity that will ensue on the Op Ed pages of the newspapers :

        Serious debates about does the public have an absolute right to know who is carrying deadly guns (open carry), so that the public who are ‘triggered’ by guns can flee in (imaginary) terror for their lives, or shall “Out of sight, out of mind” (concealed carry) be the law?

        If we thought the mass hysteria of Trump being sworn in was sweet, imagine that little choice for them to hash out… 😉

    • Are you trying to turn New York into Missouri………. you know what I am ok with that nevermind.

  8. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Well, how many muggings take place in the forest?”

    that was funny 🙂

  9. It is amazing to see the unanimity of everyone, and most particularly the liberal media, agreeing that change is in the wind. Unsurprisingly, there has been an increase in the number of “blood in the streets” op-eds and pro-control articles appearing in those outlets. ABC has been doing a rather slanted series (shows up in my news feed).

  10. @Mark N.
    “The vast majority of people don’t just “snap” spontaneously. ”

    Thanx for the review. I admit to writing the comment without benefit of sufficient intake of martinis; didn’t have the proper setup for the gag.

    • You need to be a little more conscientious with your alcohol consumption. After all, a job well done is a joy forever.

      • “You need to be a little more conscientious with your alcohol consumption. After all, a job well done is a joy forever.”

        It was a shortage of fuel that diminished the intent of the comment. With sufficient martini intake, everything becomes a job well done. Thinking of giving up Geritol in order to free funds sufficient to support my writing career.

  11. My opinion is some of the Justices wanted to laugh at the NY AG.

    “No matter where you live, no matter what you and your neighbors feel, you’ll have to live with the idea that just about anyone who wants to will be able to carry a gun in your community.”

    We already do here, no one cares really and in some places they welcome you like at the public parks at the playgrounds if you have kids there. They will tell you they feel safer with having their kids there if someone is armed. We live in a nice place, but its infested with people who are not so nice.

    A lot of people here open carry, I do too sometimes but I mostly conceal. Sometimes you run into an anti-gun person, they sometimes say something and sometimes they raise a stink about it in a store making sure everyone knows your armed and how you are going to suddenly pull your gun out and start murdering people. The customers just mostly look at them and shake their heads with that “they must have some mental health issue” look and mostly the manager asks them to leave.

  12. “No matter where you live, no matter what you and your neighbors feel, you’ll have to live with the idea that just about anyone who wants to will be able to carry a gun in your community.”

    I certainly hope so.

  13. If NYC were like the rest of NY and simply put a ton of onerous restrictions on carry, instead of effectively banning it, this court case either wouldn’t be happening or would be happening in Maryland or NJ instead. The hubris is what does them in- thinking they can not only violate the 2nd but can do so in such an obvious manner.

    • No consequences in over a hundred years so why would there ever be? Mindset not endorsement thereof.

    • Gothamites always feel they are a special breed…somewhat apart from the rest of the country and deserving of special treatment…up until recently they felt that their rules should be a model…and apply to the rest of the country, as well

  15. ““The spectacle of thinking New Yorkers can walk around with a gun concealed on our subways and into our delis and into our restaurants and into our entertainment venues—that is not the New York I want to live in.”

    How about the spectacle of criminals with guns, does that do it for you?

    You’re a fool lady. Your head in the sand complaining about law abiding citizens carrying guns to defend them selves.

    Stranger takes shirt off back, makes tourniquet after mom is shot in Manhattan

    https://pix11.com/news/local-news/manhattan/video-stranger-takes-shirt-off-back-makes-tourniquet-after-mom-is-shot-in-manhattan/

    • The last almost 2 years with bail reform, releasing massive amounts of prisoners, closing prisons, covid (mis) management, massive uptick in (gang) groups of associated persons violence, TDS, judicial appointments, more tds, Coumo removal, and now the supreme court part 2 have pretty much broken a lot of people’s illusions to anything being in control. Truly has been magical to watch if objectively horrifying in how our officials and government employees were able to handle the situation. As for the attorney…… may not have been used to needing to actually defend a state position past the formality stage or just had nothing to work with never delt with her before.

    • Can’t believe you put your comment here, where it has no context because it’s not in juxtaposition with anything I’ve said on this page.

      • “Can’t believe you put your comment here, where it has no context because it’s not in juxtaposition with anything I’ve said on this page.”

        Perhaps it is because any comment is a springboard for a tangent?

  17. “No matter where you live, no matter what you and your neighbors feel, you’ll have to live with the idea that just about anyone who wants to will be able to carry a gun in your community.” — Washington Post opinion page

    Let’s change the action from “carrying a gun” to a different action (fill in the blank) to see how silly that rationale is:

    “No matter where you live, no matter what you and your neighbors feel, you’ll have to live with the idea that just about anyone who wants to will be able to _________ in your community.”

    Imagine the possibilities for that blank line:
    — Have $ex
    — Worship any god
    — Say anything
    — Drive any vehicle
    — Practice Martial Arts
    (and saving the best for last)
    — throw a hysterical hissy fit over the prospect that anyone might carry an effective self-defense tool

  18. “Au contraire. SC judges are appointed for life, with virtually no means of recall.”

    That was/is the theory about life-time appointments. However, every appointed (vs. elected) judge won appointment based on politics of both the judge, and the political machine in power. Simply jumping from one political camp to another does not remove politics from the equation. Judges are not islands unto themselves. They don’t become hermits. Each one wants some association with which to break bread, socialize, and become a respected member of the association.

    • That’s an easy fix. Give them something to fear more than not having said association.

      FDR did it. At this point the public seems to be working up to doing the same.

      • “FDR did it. At this point the public seems to be working up to doing the same.”

        Yes, a quiet, pleasant contemplation, that.

  19. So Kathleen Hochul is horrified that Americans in the jurisdiction she serves will be going where they please and keeping and carrying arms wherever they go?

    I can only guess that she idolizes Roger Taney.

    • He WAS, after all, a member of the Democratic Party, appointed by a Democrat President; For a Democrat, what’s not to like?

    • all of this stems from them fearing the wrong group of people…urbanites traditionally have viewed guns in a negative context…the possibility of the opposite being true is an alien concept for them….

  20. ““The spectacle of thinking New Yorkers can walk around with a gun concealed on our subways and into our delis and into our restaurants and into our entertainment venues—that is not the New York I want to live in.”

    Yeah, because we wouldn’t want the governor to actually have to worry about little things like not pissing off most of the population, now would we? I mean, that could have negative health consequences for…. the governor!

    “The Supreme Court is apparently preparing to send us a message: No matter where you live, no matter what you and your neighbors feel, you’ll have to live with the idea that just about anyone who wants to will be able to carry a gun in your community.”

    Yeah, imagine if violent criminals felt this way. They’d barely be able to function within their chosen profession! Good Lord, what a travesty. Also, it’s interesting to ponder the intersection of this comment with the first one I quoted.

    If criminals and politicians (but I repeat myself) feared John or Jill Q Public the corruption and lawbreaking in country would come to a screeching halt. That’s simply unacceptable to the criminal classes.

  21. @strych9
    “Though I’d argue that since they constantly try to have it both ways the statement can be truncated to “there’s no reason to think”.

    Works for me.

  23. I certainly do hope that The Court dumps the New York Gun Law, which was, and remains an abomination. Actually, this May Issue Scam, wherever it exists, should be done away with.

Comments are closed.