Supreme Court 2A second amendment
Courtesy Jeff Hulbert
Previous Post
Next Post

The Supreme Court Justices are willing to take another crack at the city of New York’s unconstitutionally restrictive gun laws that ban bearing arms. The Court has announced that they’ve granted cert to New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Corlett which centers on whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home.

From US News . . .

The justices will take up an appeal by two gun owners and the New York affiliate of the NRA, an influential gun rights group closely aligned with Republicans, of a lower court ruling throwing out their challenge to the restrictions on concealed handguns outside the home.

Lower courts rejected the argument made by the plaintiffs that the restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The lawsuit sought an unfettered right to carry concealed handguns in public.

The case could lead to the most consequential ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment in more than a decade.

This will be the Court’s second time considering NYC’s gun control laws. The first case was declared moot by the high court last year after the city changed its law to dodge a likely adverse ruling. Reading the tea leaves, it seems the conservative justices have counted heads and believe they have enough votes for a pro-gun rights ruling.

Stay tuned.

Previous Post
Next Post

71 COMMENTS

  1. So SCOTUS does appear to be our last best hope.

    Maybe it’s not such a long way to Certiorari after all.

    Now, I wonder how Young v HI will play into this case.

    • This case by itself should be gargantuan.

      Carrying a Firearm is a right, whether the scum on the Stalinist Left, like it or not. States must recognize either open or concealed carry in shall-issue fashion.

      The Court could rule that way in this NY Case, just flat out rule that carrying a Firearm is a right, and that the State must recognize at one or the other of Concealed or Open Carry in Shall Issue.

      • “…and that the State must recognize at one or the other of Concealed or Open Carry in Shall Issue.”

        Be still my beating heart!

        I can just imagine the court saying that, and then California putting the issue up for a referendum. Then the debates in the press, “Out of sight, out of mind” for concealed, or does “The public have a right to know” for open carry.

        Either way, the cockles of my cold, black, heart are warmed at the prospect of massive angst and pearl-clutching by the Leftist scum… 🙂

    • “Now, I wonder how Young v HI will play into this case.”

      Good question.

      The cynic in me predicts NY state will go the moot route again to ‘protect’ the other slave states.

      And I wonder if Chuckles Schumer will threaten the high court again…

      • I wonder if SCOTUS will *accept* the moot ploy again, seems that would be getting pretty obvious by now.

      • I don’t think they can pull this stunt in May-Issue.

        The NYC law was really peculiar. Repealing their law to get a moot declaration simply kept SCOTUS from reaching a holding that would in any way expand the right to transport.

        In this NYS case what is at stake is: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th Circuits. All with essentially the same holding contra the right to bear arms. Would SCOTUS really let them play the mootness game four more times?

        It looks to me like the 5 justices took this case because they are ready to decide.

        • The conservative justices took the case because they finally have five solid conservatives on the court. They knew they did have Roberts on board.

      • The Supreme Court knows Young vs. Hawaii is coming their way. This is the precursor to it. I’m thinking both NY and Hawaii will change their laws rather than go through a Supreme Court case.

    • “…So SCOTUS does appear to be our last best hope…”

      I put zero faith in them and really TPTB are going to do what they want anyway.

  2. Perhaps they dropped in on TTAG and realized people who cherish freedom were not happy with them? Perhaps.

    • More likely they just figured out that the Democrats aren’t going to be able to ditch the filibuster and without killing that there is no chance for adding more justices to the Court.

      Cowardly, but understandable.

      • Or maybe they’re daring the Democrats to really “go there”, as in, Pack The Court for the purpose of creating a 1-Party Dictatorship model off Communist China.

        At that point, the Union would be best to just break up.

        • Without a doubt that would start a war. Also the recent news of the “right to carry outside the home”. Tell us no, we dare you. At least maybe then people would drop this “thin blue line” boot licking, because that would be the first wave to go. Any other way they’d just make you go broke, but telling Americans to keep them at home is like saying “or else…” and it won’t be tolerated. A lot of so called “Americans” would die, and a lot more actual Americans would be born.

        • Taking a case like this would be a “come at me bro” move wouldn’t it?

          If the court doesn’t think that there’s an assault on the powers they hold segregated from the executive and judicial branches they damn well should. I’ll be curious to see if Roberts kowtows to it or rebels against it.

      • I’d love to think that, but the far more likely scenario is that the “conservatives” on the bench agreed to take this case and, in turn, spike it, as contrition hoping that the Bolshevikocrats won’t pack their court and dilute their power … this time.

        This will, of course, repeat several times, and the Bolshevikocrats will get everything they want without having to take the political black-eye of packing the court.

        Conservatives in DC are the MVPs on the Left’s team.

  3. These stupid bastards couldn’t even get the theft of intellectual property correct. I have no faith in a just ruling.

    • “I have no faith in a just ruling.”

      If the end result is shall-issue for NY state, I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth…

      • A ruling on Constitutional grounds would not be far off the mark by requiring Constitutional Carry nationwide. Imagine the panic! “Infringed” might yet be understood.

      • I agree that would be awesome, I hope that’s how it works out. I also thought Oracle had an open and shut case against Gargoyle. I guess this could open the floodgates.

      • If you look at the history of the NYC system this should be run on the same premises as “separate but equal” was in the 60s. Separate can not be equal and looking at who is known to have CCPs in places that are may issue it is a system of rights being given for bribes and the connected basically.

    • An unjust ruling is highly unlikely.

      It wasn’t the liberal side of the bench that voted to grant cert; it was the conservative side. They didn’t decide to take the case in order to rule against the right to bear arms. Were that the sentiment then Thomas would certainly have bolted and one other would certainly have bolted. This didn’t happen.

      That strongly implies that the five are of one accord; to hold that there does exist a right to bear arms outside the home.

      We don’t know yet how sweeping the holding will be. My expectation is that they will strike-down May-Issue; thereby effecting at least Shall-Issue. And that the criteria for denying an application must be spelled out in objective black-letter law.

      That will be the beginning of a long battle with these states on what criteria will be construed as unConstitutional. E.g., fees, training, testing, live-fire, application limitations, scores . . . The end result may still be to price out-of-the-market (like a poll tax) “those who shouldn’t have them”.

      Thereafter, we will have to litigate these barriers to entry.

      • “That strongly implies that the five are of one accord; to hold that there does exist a right to bear arms outside the home.”

        But only just now reaching that accord?

        Why now, and not months ago?

        • Optimist in me says they wanted a greater scope in the case to give a wider fu here comes the freedom. Realist in me thinks as a previous poster that they read the political winds and figured court packing is doa.

        • “Realist in me thinks as a previous poster that they read the political winds and figured court packing is doa.”

          Their *hatred* of Kav is so deep, I fear for his family’s safety. Some POS Leftist scum could decide to “Take one for the team” and adjust the court balance by one vote… 🙁

        • “Like a Scalise kind of scenario?”

          When it comes to political violence, Leftist scum literally wrote the book…

      • One would not think the “Right to bear arms” would be so complicated and able to include “except when the master says you can’t”
        These restrictions states like NJ, NY, MD, CA, etc.. place in order to deny carry is exactly what the founders didn’t want.
        It’s not just firearms, its “arms” for a reason. knife, bat, cattle prod, doesn’t matter. You have a right to defend yourself. Those who are afraid of freemen carrying firearms have every right to defend themselves by doing the same.
        Choosing not to carry a weapon and then forcing your neighbor to go without for your protection is insane!

      • MarkPA,

        If the United States Supreme Court acts honorably and upholds the U.S. Constitution with their ruling on this case, I am pretty confident that they will simply rule that we have a right to bear arms outside the home (thus all states must allow concealed and/or open carry) and that any court rulings on limitations must come via strict scrutiny.

        I am equally confident that the U.S. Supreme Court, in this ruling, will NOT wade into deep waters on what kinds of restrictions the states or fedzilla can impose (e.g. training requirements or carriage in “sensitive places”). That will be subject matter for a future case/ruling. I doubt that this ruling will even forbid states from charging for licensing.

        I also suspect that this case and/or future cases will allow the states to require minimal training and licensing (for a minimal fee) as long as the licensing scheme is shall-issue. The U.S. Supreme Court will justify this as balancing the “compelling governmental interest of public safety” with our inalienable Constitutionally enumerated right. (Note that all levels of the courts have allowed the equivalent of shall-issue licensing and minimal fees for First Amendment Free Speech demonstrations that would otherwise impact/interfere with vehicular travel.)

        • ” I doubt that this ruling will even forbid states from charging for licensing.”

          I have no problem with licensing fees if they were no more expensive than a driver’s license, for example.

          The days of 400-dollar application fees should go the way of poll taxes…

  4. “…of the NRA, an influential gun rights group closely aligned with Republicans…” That should be, “closely aligned with Americans and their Constitution…”

  5. SCOTUS has lost it’s way. It has become just another part of the political apparatus that is on the other side. Remember this group didn’t think a fraudulent election was of any consequence and had nothing to do with the Constitution.

    • “SCOTUS has lost it’s way.”

      Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some from your bag?

      They GRANTED cert, they didn’t deny it. Would you have preferred they said ‘no’?

      • Lookie here!

        It’s little wolfie!

        It’s gonna be guns *everywhere*, and there isn’t a damn thing scum like you can do about it!

        That must really piss you off doesn’t it?

        HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa… 🙂

        • Well, you’d be a complete cock too if, like Geoff, you’d never known the touch of a woman.

    • Roger Johnson,

      “Remember this group didn’t think a fraudulent election was of
      any consequence and had nothing to do with the Constitution.”

      I am angrier and better informed about the 2020 general election shenanigans than most people. The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution clearly spells out that each State’s Legislature can send whatever electoral votes they want for any reason or no reason. Thus, how any given state legislature decided to allocate their electoral votes was up to them and it was NOT a matter for U.S. Supreme Court review.

      Important detail: nothing, I repeat, NOTHING compels any state legislature to allocate their electors according to how the people of that state vote. While all states have traditionally allocated their electors according to the popular vote in their state, that was by choice and not compulsion.

      And to make that point crystal clear: do you remember hearing how some states were threatening to allocate their electors according to the national popular vote? That was their way of saying, “Our state legislature is going to allocate our electors according to the national popular vote even if a majority of voters in our state vote differently.

      Direct your ire (with respect to the 2020 general election shenanigans) at your state legislature, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

      • You are correct.
        Elections are and have always been a local issue. Our country was built on that premise. If you don’t vote. If you don’t pay attention to your local politics. Then you will be surprised when a national election comes around. And is stolen. Because national elections are stolen at the local level.

        And it’s local people who are involved. That gets state level constitutional carry passed in their state.

      • I don’t understand how the SC could deny standing to Texas and the other states that joined the lawsuit against Pennsylvania if what Pennsylvania did affects the whole nation. If that isn’t standing what is? Serious question uncommon_sense.

        • If I understand the term properly, “standing” is not the same as “complaint”. “Standing” is about direct impacts to the one requesting relief. It is not about principle. The court must be able to determine a specific damage, and that it has authority to provide remedy, and that an actual remedy exists.

        • muckraker,

          All states affect the outcome of the election. That does not create standing for a lawsuit.

          The key fact here is that United States Constitution explicitly gives the Pennsylvania legislature the authority to send their electoral college electors any way that they see fit, whether or not that agrees with how the people in Pennsylvania voted.

          As I remember it, that was intentional and a safeguard in case some silver-tongued liar was able to deceive the public into thinking that he/she was an excellent candidate for President of the United States when, in reality, that candidate was intent on destroying the nation (and state legislatures know that even though the voting populace does not). Thus, in that rare case, the U.S. Constitution allows the state legislatures to override their deceived voting populace and send electors to the electoral college to vote for a different candidate who is not intent on destroying the nation.

          In this last election, the Pennsylvania legislature could easily make that argument that, in their opinion, Trump was a silver-tongued liar who was going to destroy the nation. Thus, the Pennsylvania legislature recognized that Trump managed to deceive Pennsylvania voters and therefore sent electors for Biden to the electoral college.

          That is why I said that any fault lies at the feet of the state legislatures which sent their electoral college electors to vote for Biden.

          (Note that every state’s legislature could have made the exact same argument that Biden was intent on destroying the nation and therefore could have sent their electoral college electors to vote for Trump regardless of whether or not their own state’s voters actually voted for Biden.)

  6. The right to travel freely and protect yourself with a firearm regardless of which state you are in has been hidden and ignored for far too long.
    No man should have authority over another to deem them unfit to protect them or their loved ones when traveling outside of his home anywhere in the United States.

    Making one a criminal in one state and not another is asinine and ridiculous at minimum.

    Carry for all, or carry for none. These bogus mini laws do nothing to protect people and everything to make criminals of honest men.

    oh and Jim Crow gun control and DemonCrats and such…

  7. I know it won’t happen but I would love to see all the ‘licensing scheme/scandal’ crap from places like NYC and California be presented for days on end to the Supreme Court. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office taking money (the Apple security story from back in January & other incidents many years before), the 2017 NYPD gun license division bribery stuff, how the ‘bourgeoisie’ get permits but the ‘peasants’ don’t, etc…
    https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lifestyles-rich-packin-high-profile-celebrities-seeking-gun-permits-rise-article-1.441377

      • Don’t worry, becoming a police officer in NJ gives you a free pass to carry and buy all the firearms you wish for life.
        Because we all know once you become a Jersey cop, you become one of the most trusted and honest members of society ever!

        If that isn’t some NAZI crap I don’t know what is!

  8. This is good, but it won’t turn out like we all want it. We have been let down far too many times. I expect some watered-down version of a ruling that will either be ignored by the states or picked apart by the Leftist.

    • Do NOT expect SCOTUS to grant a lot. It will grant as little as is necessary to resolve the case; and, be grateful if it goes a little farther.

      My expectation is that they will strike-down May-Issue and require state legislatures to spell-out in black-letter law objective criteria for denying an application.

      That will be enough for us to carry on the fight.

      • “…require state legislatures to spell-out in black-letter law objective criteria for denying an application.”

        I could see standards being created, such as meeting law enforcement standards for accuracy.

        If a shooting test ends up being required, the end result will be in cops having to prove they can shoot.

        And if it’s nationwide, we could see firearm instruction at the high school level again, the same as driver’s ed… 🙂

        • I could see standards being created, …

          This will be one of the likely outcomes. As mentioned by others, the standards will be set to be unachievable by the average citizen. LEOs will be exempt from demonstrating competency.

          I expect that states will use this as a means to force psyche evals, registration of your chosen concealed carry firearm and of course, liability insurance.

  9. Quiet down, kids. Stop squirming and giggling.

    The SC is loathe to tackle a constitutional issue straight up. Their preference is to determine if form and function of due process has been properly considered. That is, the SC favors ruling on any case from the bottom up, vs. the top (Constitution) down. Enough of the judges probably found the likelihood that there is a procedural conflict they can resolve without reaching a constitutional issue.

    Speculating this case will rest on the 9th and 10th amendments, deferring to the police power implicit in any formal government. If the SC can rule in favor of state and local “compelling government interest”, that would shut down future 2A cases for decades.

    • Sam I Am,

      I share a great degree of your jaded attitude. I myself was immediately wondering what kind of “play” this was.

      Here is what I was wondering:

      1) The five conservative Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were planning to allow virtually unrestricted Constitutional carry outside the home and require strict scrutiny for future cases. And “virtually unrestricted” meant banning training and licensing requirements (and fees) as well as severely limiting what governments can declare to be “sensitive places” where governments could forbid bearing arms.

      2) Democrats threatened to “pack the court” if those five conservative Justices made good on their promise for virtually unrestricted carry outside the home.

      3) The five conservative Justices compromised with the Democrat party and agreed to allow a LOT of restrictions on the right to bear arms outside the home such as allowing government required training and shall-issue licensing at a minimal fee in addition to a plethora of “sensitive places” where governments can ban firearm possession.

      • When it comes to government (SC is a branch of government, and the vast majority of judges hail from Harvard or Yale; group think), i always expect a tortured, wormy decision on what are, at bottom, matters of constitutional authority.

    • ” If the SC can rule in favor of state and local “compelling government interest”, that would shut down future 2A cases for decades.”

      I just can’t believe Thomas and Coney-Barret would let that slide…

      • “I just can’t believe Thomas and Coney-Barret would let that slide…”

        The SC judges are as political as any elected official. They cover it well. The sword of Damocles currently hangs over their head. The natural response to the mob (appeasement) infects government agents everywhere.

  10. The case could lead to the most consequential ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment in more than a decade.

    Um, more like the only ruling on the Second Amendment in more than a decade.

    (Yes, yes, I know there was the stun-gun ruling which I personally do not consider a Second Amendment case. However you look at it, it certainly was not a “consequential” ruling.)

    • “Um, more like the only ruling on the Second Amendment in more than a decade.”

      They ruled NY Pistol moot.

      Not much of a ruling, but still technically qualifies as a ruling… 🙁

  11. I’m not optimistic, because of where I live, in the People’s Republic of New Jersey (PRNJ).
    No matter what the Supreme Court rules, if it’s a pro-gun ruling, New Jersey will simply ignore it.

    How do I know? Because the PRNJ already ignores not only the U.S. Constitution, but also Federal laws and Supreme Court rulings. For example, New Jersey (as well as New York) ignore and routinely violate the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA says that citizens can legally transport guns from state to state without being arrested just for doing so, as long as they follow certain rules (e.g. keeping guns locked in the trunk of the car and unloaded, or declared as checked baggage on airplanes).

    The PLCAA is Federal Law that is supposed to supersede all state law. However, New Jersey and New York routinely arrest people for legally transporting guns through NY or NJ in accordance with the PLCAA. When an airplane flight has an unexpected layover in NY or NJ, New Jersey arrests the gun owners on the plane simply for following Federal law and having legally-declared guns in their checked baggage. And don’t drive through New Jersey while legally transporting guns from state to state under the PLCAA, or you’ll put yourself at risk of spending 10 years as a guest in a NJ state prison!

    Yes, I know, the only solution is to move out of the PRNJ and move to Free America, but as my wife and I both have jobs that keep us here, that will have to wait until retirement!

    • I think you mean FOPA, the one that banned new civilian machine gun registration. Hence why I think FOPA is a complete loss- it introduced a great loss to gun rights and states just get away with ignoring the minor gains. PLCAA is the “suing Chevy for drunk drivers” law.

  12. I was going t say something sarcastic like
    “In other news the SCOTUS will decide if American citizens can travel outside of their homes”
    Then I realized that sadly, that might be a real thing

  13. So NY changes their law again and we get another moot ruling. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice……

    • They won’t. The only way to make the matter “moot” would be for NY and every other state to go to shall-issue. Let alone banking on other states like NJ, CA and HI to go shall-issue, NY lawmakers would rather drown than go shall-issue, especially NYC. NYC gun grabbers are welded to the Sullivan Act and will never, ever give it up willingly.

  14. Maybe SCOTUS has finally had enough of the executive and legislative branches threatening the judicial branch. Maybe SCOTUS will finally exercise their constitutional powers and start limiting the over-reach of the other branches.

    Maybe is a big word.

  15. The state will probably do something like…improve the issuing of carry permits in an attempt to get the case mooted. That trick worked last time, why not again? Of course any improvement would likely be all smoke and mirrors in that instead of no chance in hell of getting a permit, there is a path forward. Of course there’s also a chance of winning four hundred million in Power Ball, which you’d have to do to get a carry permit in NY!

  16. If the justices want to avoid a second American Civil War? Then they had better start supporting the Constitution. Because the Tawny Court in 1857, Dred Scott v. Marie Sandford, certainly did not support the Constitution.

  17. Yawn. If anyone believes the SC will actually issue a broad ruling, that is favorable to us, AND will then slap down any new laws that violate said ruling, well… check your email, because a Nigerian Prince has an amazing opportunity for you

Comments are closed.