Clarence Thomas
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

[ED: TTAG contributor and member of the Supreme Court bar, LKB, has perused today’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision and gives us his best assessment of what this means for gun rights now and could mean in the future.]

By LKB

That popping sound you may have heard at 10:41 AM Eastern this morning was thousands of anti-2A minds being blown simultaneously. The wailing you’ve been hearing since that’s emanating from various liberal neighborhoods, newsrooms, universities, and blue state government officials is indeed the lamentation of the women.

Our long, frustrating wait of the past decade or more – through the years of the Mexican standoff created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s unpredictability, followed by Chief Justice John Roberts’ spinelessness – is over at long last.

Justice Clarence Thomas celebrated his 74th birthday today by giving the nation an incredible present, a 6-3 Supreme Court opinion that leaves no doubt: the Second Amendment is no longer a “second class right,” but is instead a fundamental constitution right that must be treated as such.

There will be barrels of ink spilled in the coming weeks as this opinion is dissected and analyzed. But for now here is my quick synopsis of the opinion, the concurrences, and the dissent, as well as my initial thoughts on what this may mean for future cases.

I urge you to read the opinion (especially the historical sections) for yourself. Justice Thomas is a fine writer and this opinion is one of his best.

Executive Summary 

The Court has held that the “text, history, and tradition” test must be applied to Second Amendment cases, and that “means-end” balancing under intermediate or even strict scrutiny – which certain courts have used for years to essentially ignore Heller – is improper.

After undertaking an exhaustive, 33-page review of the history of Anglo-American law concerning the bearing of arms for self-defense, the Court concluded that New York’s “may issue” system for issuing concealed carry permits infringes the rights of law abiding citizens, who have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home for self defense.

While the case itself deals only with New York’s laws, the opinion leaves no room for doubt that the “may issue” laws of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, California, and Hawaii are also now officially toast.

The conclusion was classic Clarence Thomas:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.

The decision was decided on a 6 to 3 vote. As noted by Cody Wisniewski, a Second Amendment expert for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, that fact is also encouraging . . .

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Thomas. Given this was a 6-3 opinion with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority, that means Chief Justice Roberts assigned the majority opinion to be written by Justice Thomas.

I agree with Cody. Recall that under Supreme Court practice, the Chief Justice assigns the writing of an opinion unless he is in the minority, in which case the opinion is assigned by the most senior Justice in the majority.

I had expected that if Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority, it would be a tactical decision on his part so that he could assign the opinion to himself or to perhaps Justices Kavanaugh or Barrett, who might be expected to write a much narrower opinion than Justice Thomas would. Thomas is the most senior Justice and by far and is the most ardent advocate on the Court for Second Amendment rights.

Because Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority, that means that he assigned the opinion to Justice Thomas, no doubt knowing exactly what kind of opinion Thomas would almost certainly write. That’s a very hopeful sign for the future.

Majority Opinion

After reviewing the New York laws in question, the laws of other states, and the facts of this particular case (two New Yorkers who had “restricted” licenses to own handguns but were denied “unrestricted” licenses that would have allowed them to carry for self defense), Justice Thomas first turned to the proper standard of review. This is typical procedure in judicial decisions.

He noted that since Heller, most Courts of Appeals have employed a “two-step” procedure, where the court first evaluates whether the law in question facially implicates Second Amendment rights. If so, the court then evaluates whether there is an important governmental interest that outweighs the individual right, using either intermediate scrutiny (most common) or strict scrutiny.

Justice Thomas rejected this approach as “one step too many” . . .

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The opinion proceeded to explain why the text, history, and tradition approach is mandated by Heller, but also “comports with how we assess many other constitutional rights.”

Without getting too far into the weeds, this analysis could be an earthquake in constitutional law, as it may spell the demise of intermediate or strict scrutiny analysis for other constitutional rights, such as free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection cases. (Given that the Court has granted cert on two affirmative action cases, the respondents in those cases should be afraid – very afraid.)

The opinion then explained the test for Second Amendment cases . . .

The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.  In some cases, that inquiry will be fairly straightforward. For instance, when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Likewise, if earlier generations addressed the societal problem, but did so through materially different means, that also could be evidence that a modern regulation is unconstitutional. And if some jurisdictions actually attempted to enact analogous regulations during this timeframe, but those proposals were rejected on constitutional grounds, that rejection surely would provide some probative evidence of unconstitutionality.

The opinion thus proceeded to analyze whether the New York “may issue” system implicated the Second Amendment at all. In finding it did, it torched a number of arguments that the anti-Second Amendment forces have been making for years.

Take, for example, the common argument that Heller only applies to the “keeping” of arms in the home. That argument is now firmly consigned to the dustbin of history.

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality. The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

Nor does Heller’s allowance of prohibiting arms in “sensitive places” allow New York City to simply declare large swaths of populated areas off limits.

Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

Similarly, it reiterated earlier rulings that the Second Amendment is not limited to arms in existence in the late 18th Century, thus burying the argument that the Second Amendment is somehow limited to flintlock muskets.

Having determined that the New York “may issue” laws implicated the Second Amendment, the Court then proceeded to make an exhaustive review of Anglo-American law from medieval times through the early 20th century regarding the bearing of arms in the public.

This part of the opinion is far too long to do it justice in a quick summary. Suffice it to say that it neatly disposes of a lot of historical legends and misrepresentations, and is probably the most comprehensive history of that law that I have seen in a judicial opinion (again, read the whole thing).  But importantly, Justice Thomas focused on the fact that the proper inquiry is what the Second Amendment was understood to mean at the time of adoption.

We categorize these historical sources because, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635 (emphasis added). The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868.  Historical evidence that long predates either date may not illuminate the scope of the right if linguistic or legal conventions changed in the intervening years. It is one thing for courts to “reac[h] back to the 14th century” for English practices that “prevailed up to the ‘period immediately before and after the framing of the Constitution.’” Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U. S. 269, 311 (2008) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting). It is quite another to rely on an “ancient” practice that had become “obsolete in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” and never “was acted upon or accepted in the colonies.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 477 (1935).

After reviewing the history, the Court held that broad prohibitions on the bearing of arms by law-abiding persons for self defense were not historically traditional. Indeed, the opposite was true. As such, respondents could not overcome the presumption that the New York laws are unconstitutional, and those laws were thus struck down.

Concurrences

There were also three concurrences. In response to Justice Breyer’s handwringing dissent (which was, not surprisingly, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomajor), Justice Alito issued a blistering concurrence (I’ll discuss both below).

Justice Kavanaugh (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) concurred to emphasize that the opinion does not prohibit states from implementing “shall issue” licensing laws, but also made clear that the remaining “may issue” systems are kaput.

They also quoted from McDonald that the Second Amendment does not prohibit longstanding prohibitions of possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, nor the carrying of arms in sensitive places, and that the Second Amendment applies to arms “in common use.”

Justice Barrett concurred to note that the historical approach used by the Court (which, as I noted above, could be an earthquake in constitutional law) did not resolve whether and to what extent post-ratification practices and history can be considered in determining the intent at the time of ratification. (This is a serious issues for law nerds, but for now I’ll leave it at that.)

Dissent and Alito’s Concurrence

To no one’s surprise, Justice Breyer wrote a lengthy (52-page) dissent enunciating the usual talking points from the left about gun violence, etc., and disagreeing with the elimination of the two-step analytical framework and Justice Thomas’ interpretations of the historical record. I’ll leave a detailed analysis of that to the reader.

Justice Alito apparently took on the job of writing the rejoinder to the liberal Justices’ dissent. It was…ruthless. Heck, at times it reads like something you’d see in the TTAG comment section.

Examples:

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self- defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns, and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury. …

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. …

Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.  And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

It’s another bravura Alito opinion. Read it.

Implications for Future Cases

As indicated above, “may issue” permitting systems appear to be a dead letter under this decision. Yes, New York, California, and other “may issue” jurisdiction will try and press their luck, but organizations like GOA, FPC, MSLF, and others will have a field day with them in court.

Just as Illinois and DC had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to implement “shall issue,” it may take some time but it will happen. Indeed, I’ll be watching to see if federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against blue state politicians, especially if they publicly admit that they are trying to thwart implementation of this decision.

As noted in the Alito concurrence, the decision does not directly affect things like “assault rifle” bans. However, under the historical analysis mandated by the Court, I do not expect those to survive, especially given that AR-platform rifles are the most popular long gun in the country.  Expect to now see a slew of Court of Appeal decision summarily sent packing with instructions to reconsider in light of this decision.

Jurisdictions like New York and California will no longer be allowed to rely on friendly judges applying intermediate scrutiny to uphold new flavor-of-the-month regulations on guns and gun owners. Such laws are now presumptively unconstitutional, and states will have to show that they have actual historical analogues to save them.

That’s not likely to happen, albeit again it will likely take a lot of lawyering to drag them over the line.

What of the NFA and Gun Control Act of ’68? We’ll see. Parts of them will certainly be challenged (in some cases, the test cases are already on file).

But what will be particularly interesting to me will be an attack on the Hughes Amendment. Given that machine guns were subject to no prohibitions prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, and thereafter could still be manufactured and sold to the public with a tax stamp until 1986, and that weapons on the registry in 1986 are still legal with a tax stamp, methinks the government will have an uphill fight upholding the Hughes Amendment under the Bruen test.

I have been studying Second Amendment law for over 40 years, and have been waiting for a decision like this that recognizes and restores our Second Amendment rights for a very long time. It is hard to emphasize how big this decision is in lots of respects, and not just for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For now, let’s all celebrate Justice Thomas’ birthday (heck, I think June 23 needs to be an annual celebration hereafter, at least here at TTAG) by firing up a fine cigar in his honor (he prefers Ashtons).

And be sure to savor the lamentation of the women….

Previous Post
Next Post

118 COMMENTS

  1. Chelsea Clinton said years ago that someday the “Supreme Court will make a definitive ruling on guns in the United States”. Well Chelsea, it looks like this is the one time we can all agree with you. Unfortunately, Chelsea I don’t think this was the ruling that you were looking for and if you are curious here is why.

    “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.”

    • avatar Geoff "A day without an obsessed, obviously brain-damaged and mentally-ill demented troll (who deserves to live in New Jersey) PR

      You can bet the next time the high court balance changes in their favor, they will strike Heller, et. al.

      Count on it…

      • That’s a LONG way off, especially if the GOP retakes the Senate in 2022 or 2024 (when the math is a lot more favorable for the GOP). And if we have a GOP president + Senate in 2024, expect Thomas and Alito to retire and let the President cement originalist control of the Court for another decade.

        Meanwhile, cue the lamentations of da wimmin:

        “It’s difficult to overstate how devastating Thomas’ opinion is for gun control laws. This goes so, so far beyond concealed carry. The Supreme Court has effectively rendered gun restrictions presumptively unconstitutional. This is a revolution in Second Amendment law.”

        Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, who is having kittens right now.
        https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539983314345500674?cxt=HHwWhIC9ucmqj98qAAAA

        • It also applies to the rest of the enumerated rights.

          Thomas just up the standard across the board.

        • A long way off? When the We Hate Wypipo Party picks up enough seats for a supermajority in both houses in November–and they’re going to have Ruby Freeman and Dale “Bigchoppadoe” Harrison counting the votes again this time–they’re only going to be emboldened by the lack of consequences for the fraud two years ago, the fraud they put all over the Internet themselves because they feel so safe and so justified. None of them will ever see the inside of a jail cell, and they know it.

          No, they’re going to pack the Supreme Court with a dozen more lawyers vetted by the ACLU and NAMBLA. They control all the institutions, they’ve consolidated power, and they’re not afraid of us. They’ve been sending up trial balloons for years about scrapping the Constitution altogether on a simple majority vote in Congress, presumably to be replaced with “SHUT UP, THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD” scribbled in crayon on a brown paper bag. And why wouldn’t they? It just gets in the way of what they want to do. “This is for your own good.” “Trust us.” And the new Senators from Palmyra Atoll and Guam and Puerto Rico and American Samoa and DC will all have (D) by their names, and that will give them a permanent supermajority forevermore.

          The mask has slipped. They don’t have to hide what they want any more. They’re going to do exactly what they’ve been telling us they’re planning for years. “Re-education camps” for all you Flyover Country terrorists, that’s just the beginning:

          https://www.blueoregon.com/2007/11/its-time-for-a/

          https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/amPALgd_700b.jpg

          But if we just give enough money to the GOP after they lose again, we’re sure to get ’em next time! They’re going too far, am I right? Why, I might have to write a sternly worded letter to my Congressman if this goes on!

          The System is not going to fix the System. We aren’t voting our way out of this. Harden your heart.

      • Not that easy to do, Geoff. In the first instance, SCOTUS has always tried to step lightly when actually overturning a prior ruling. It happens (Dred Scott, Brown v. Board) but it is rare, and the decisions are usually narrow and “measured”.

        Second issue is that Thomas wrote a BRILLIANT opinion, and deliberately left the gun-grabbing @$$holes no wiggle room. Now, a Leftist/fascist majority could just outright overrule Bruen. Good luck with that! My take is that they will play the Ninth Circuit’s idiot game of “escape and evade”, and try to work around it as much as possible. But, either way, it’s gonna be a while before they get the chance.

      • @Geoff “A day without an obsessed.
        How do you support that? you clearly do not know history of the court. All the court did was recognize a 400 year solid tradition of the right to bear firearms. We know during colonial times the vast majority of Americans had guns. and we know most probably do today. For a comparative short while authoritarians and fascist method left tried to reverse that, but it is OVER. Even leftist legal scholars today are saying this profound strengthen of Second Amendment protection will last “generations” at least, so it wont be reversed.

        Also reversals of major 2:1 (and this was 6:3) are profoundly rare. Much more likely future courts will relax gun control even more.
        If you are going to cite reversal of Roe, there isn’t an iota of mention of abortion in the Bill of rights or or rest of Constitution. and even liberal left wing legal scholars say Roe was decided on grounds that are problematic. In fact especially liberals have reversed prior decisions extremely rarely.
        sorry of that upsets you Karen! Have a nice day 🙂

        • Black Supreme Court Justice writes the opinion overturning a 100 year old Jim Crow Law in NY! The leftists should be celebrating!

        • “If you are going to cite reversal of Roe, there isn’t an iota of mention of abortion in the Bill of rights or or rest of Constitution.”

          No, ‘Dred Scott’.

          (That one *should* have been reversed, and it was.)

          With the same sense pious righteousness the Leftist Scum ™ will reverse Heller when they get the chance.

          I’m really sorry if that upsets you Karen! 🙂

        • “Black Supreme Court Justice writes the opinion overturning a 100 year old Jim Crow Law in NY!”

          It was sweet the way Thomas twisted the knife when he called out gun control for what it really is, *racism* :

          Page 58

          “A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public.

          Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

          Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms — a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America.”

          Yeah, he went *there* 🙂

  2. Alito went out of his way (page 3 of dissent) to say guns can still be restricted on demographic basis, even if that demographic is 20-25% of the population. Another disappointment. I’d expect that from Roberts, but Alito?! Who was held hostage to get THAT in?

    • Ah, no.

      He said that this decision “does not expand the categories of people who may not lawfully possess a gun.” Are you saying felons, the mentally ill, and other prohibited persons are “20-25% of the population”?

      Precisely what demographic are you saying Alito, on p.3 of the concurrence (it’s not a dissent), blessed denying the right to possess guns? I’m looking right at it and I don’t see it.

        • OK, I’m looking at the table you linked. PRECISELY what demographic are you saying is 19.34% of the population and is being denied the right to possess firearms? What exactly is your point?

          Assuming you are talking about under 21’s, federal law says they cannot purchase long guns until 18, and handguns until 21. It doesn’t prohibit possession or bearing.

          And I suspect the ban on over 18-but-under-21’s will go down soon — the test cases are already on file.

        • Nanashi: might have been Churchill who advised if you find yourself in a hole best you stop digging

        • SCOTUS decides specific cases for specific reasons. They can’t use this case to address a completely different law, nor can they change the law themselves. That’s the job of Congress or a state legislature. NYSRPA v. Bruen was not about age laws.

          State laws about handguns vary. In Texas, where I am, those under age 18 can possess a handgun under certain circumstances. They have to check several boxes but they can have them in limited ways. There is no minimum age on possessing or receiving rifles or shotguns under federal law.

          Alito was not doing anything to undermine gun owners.

        • The Supreme Court can’t change the law? They’ve been legislating from the bench for eighty or ninety years now–“emanations and penumbras,” and all that rot. Until today it was only Leftists who did it, though. I’m okay with today’s decision and recognize its importance.

          But if anybody thinks New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California are going to get with the program, you’re sadly mistaken. Government spokesmen in those states, and others, have already announced their intent to defy the ruling. No, this is the way it’s going to play out.

          Supreme Court: that law violates the Constitution. You can’t do that.

          Blue state governments: f*** you, we do what we want!

          Supreme Court: isn’t the Executive Branch supposed to enforce the law?

          Biden, Garland, et al: oh, you were serious. We’ll laugh harder.

          Because Supreme Court decisions only matter enough for the military to get sent in when they are advancing Leftist causes. If the Supreme Court were to object to DeSantis in Florida making it harder for pedophiles to groom little boys in the classroom, why, then, yeah, he’d have paratroopers landing around the Governor’s Mansion and Navy SEALs in SCUBA gear popping out of the toilets and the bathtub drains before the ink was dry. DoJ and the ACLU would have lawyers strapped to the nose cones of ICBMs to launch with cease-and-desist orders in their hands before they finished reading the verdict. But an actual Constitutional right? The Sex Change Operations for Six Year Olds Party hates the Constitution, hates guns, hates Whitey, hates all those deplorable Flyover Country bitter clingers, and they’re going to make a show of not expending any effort, funds, or political capital on enforcing a decision they don’t like to prove that they’re in charge and they do what they want even if the courts disagree. This is not the way a legitimate government behaves, but the elephant in the room here is that this has been a lawless banana republic for at least fifty years now, and the Left, now that they control the government, the military, the financial system, the news and entertainment media, and all the institutions, are drunk with power and getting bolder and more brazen with every week that passes.

          And the upcoming midterm election may not be the romp for Team Dead Elephant that we’ve been fantasizing about. The printers have been running red-hot round the clock for a year and a half now printing up pre-filled “mail-in ballots,” which will be dutifully counted by Ruby Freeman and Dale “Bigchoppadoe” Harrison and all their friends, who will make video of themselves doing it, again, and post them all over Facebook, Youtube, and Tik Tok, again, and dare us to say a word about it, again. Precinct after precinct in Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Harlem will report 350% turnout and 100% votes for the straight Democrat ticket, again, or they may decide it doesn’t matter any more and record a thousand percent turnout, or a million bazillion percent. And we’ll all nod our heads and give more money to Mitch McConnell and the US Chamber of Commerce and agree that we’re gonna vote harder next time. Yeah, maybe in 2024 we can nominate a real outsider, and he’ll whip ’em into shape and save the country, just like Trump did. Yeah. Sure.

          The courts aren’t going to save us. The politicians aren’t going to save us. The System is not going to fix the System. We didn’t win a thing today. We’re not voting our way out of this.

    • Actually, Alito’s concurrence with the majority in slapping down the 3 in minority shows just what a 3rd grade, not being able to read and interpret plain English argument Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer are trying to make.

      Bravo! What are these 3 even doing being allowed in the same room with the rest? Perhaps Roberts will start growing a pair. We can only hope.

      A concise, easy to read and understand summary, LKB. Thanks for putting in the time and sharing.

    • Hoe you grow 24 to 25% is beyond me. You seem to mean felons and children’s and also assume all children are prohibited from possession when that is not true in N. Hampshire and several other states.
      Just say thank you to the NRA, its New York group, and the orange bad man — oh and mitch McConnel who insured that we have a strong majority on the courts.
      This is a major win.

    • Hey, and some of you probably missed it between celebatory swigs, but the Court also upheld SC’s Voter ID law as well. We’ve had that in IA for some time- I sent off a congrats to IA Secretary of State Paul Pate, who authored IA’s law.

      Now, after a brief celebration, we ALL need to get back to work. The cretins running these hell-hole cities abd states aren’t going to give up easily and the Biden regime isn’t gojng to dispense the US Marshals to enforce these restored freedoms… It’s still, ultimately up to us.

  3. “What of the NFA and Gun Control Act of ’68? We’ll see.”

    At a minimum, I’d like to see the slave states be required to allow NFA ‘toys’ for their citizens. Sweeter would be getting the ‘Hughes’ bullshit struck.

    It seems the recent influx of Glock ‘giggle switches’ is a result of someone reverse-engineering an existing one sold before the 1986 ban went into effect.

    The real question is, as I see it, will we be forced to litigate away every one of thousands of infringing laws on the books?

    • “The real question is, as I see it, will we be forced to litigate away every one of thousands of infringing laws on the books?”

      Count on it. I haven’t seen or read any response from Governor Newsom yet, but CA has always played the tactic of “delay, punt, and appeal” to stretch out the timeline of their court losses as long as possible. First we’ll need to have an actual lawsuit filed against the State of California, and then wait for it to make its way through the system. In the meantime, those of us who still have CCW applications sitting in some Sheriff Deputy’s trash can continue to wait…

      …unless we use this as our green light and say “screw it, we’re done waiting”.

      • The lower courts will have to recognize the scotus decision of today. They will have to decide based on our clearly defined civil rights. Even the 9th will not have a choice.

        • You mean like they did with Heller? No, the 9th is definitely going to play games every step of the way, at least until they get slapped down a few more times, probably even after that. Historical understanding? Well, their understanding from Law School in 1990 was that the 2nd Amendment was a meaningless inkblot, and that’s close enough to the 18th century, right?

      • And I hope he and the NY Gov keeps flapping their gums like that. Then cue the lawsuits asserting section 1983 / conspiracy to violate civil rights claims against them, personally, and his words that he’s deliberately trying to evade a SCOTUS decision and deprive people of the rights recognized by the Supreme Court will hang him.

        Trust me, there will be injunctions sought within weeks, and those are immediately appealable if denied. The historical examples are DC and Illinois.

        • I saw the NY Gov’s response…Laughable to the extreme with her stern looks at the camera. I wish could have been there to ridicule her in front of the cameras.

      • Holchul has stated that they will make this difficult with onerous requirements and red tape. More law suits will be required to get them in line. It’s time to use civil rights violation lawsuits against these communists. Sue for criminal penalties, not money.

        • Yeah I saw something about that. She intends to call a special session to enact as many roadblocks to carry, including bans on public transportation (which in NYC is more and more a place you need protection), expanding no carry zones, and even suggesting that they will a) try to limit the tolal number of CCWs issued (a nonstarter) or b) trying to limit the number of guns a person can own or something (again, a nonstarter). I have seen the Wild Wild West analogy being deployed, and these fools arguing that that is why restrictions are so incredibly important. Include in that group the Mayor of NYC. The Trace has published an op-ed, and one publication has stated that this is the end and that terro shall reign.

          Meanwhile, Kirkland & Ellis has forced out Paul Clement, saying that it will no longer handle 2A cases, and Clement and another S.C litigator had a choice of dropping all of their 2A cases or leaving. They left.

        • “Meanwhile, Kirkland & Ellis has forced out Paul Clement, saying that it will no longer handle 2A cases, and Clement and another S.C litigator had a choice of dropping all of their 2A cases or leaving. They left.”

          Whoa, to another shop?

          Or do you think they will just ‘hang a shingle’ in DC and start litigating 2A cases only?

        • My gosh, watching Gov. Hochul rant and rave and impotently gnash her teeth… perhaps one of the most satisfying moments, politically, in years. I especially appreciated her flailing and grasping at straws: “we’ll go back to muskets!”

          Haw haw haw. No you won’t, stupid. You’ll do what the constitution says and like it.

        • Napresto ain’t no going back to muskets the daffy dame banned them along with flare guns nail guns and others.

      • One of the cases being held is Young v. Hawaii, where the Ninth held that there was NO RIGHT to bear arms outside the home, just as there is NO RIGHT to a CCW in Peruta. Young will likely be reversed with instructions to reconsider in light of Bruen, and will necessarily be reversed and remanded to the Hawaii District Court. So good news for Hawaii and California, as both will now be “shall issue.” Peruta is overruled by implication, because a shall issue CCW is inconsistent with a ruling that there is no right to a CCW.

        • Agreed. It’s no longer a matter of “if”, but “when”, and both CA and HI will drag it out as long as they think they can.

    • See what happened in Ill. They will try to drag it out. We may get constitutional carry out of their foot dragging.

      This is so big we haven’t had time to get over the shock. It means our 2a is equal to all other rights and cannot be impeded. They will try and they will burn in court.

      Anti gunners are trying to push back against desegregation and it is a fools errand.

  4. LKB, thank you for your scholarship and for enlightening us once again.
    June 23rd needs to be Justice Thomas Day, when the 2A community celebrates him, this decision, and the 2A.

      • Former smoker here. Took a long rip off the vape in celebratory fashion.

        My main man Thomas for the win, pure ecstasy!

    • Thankfully because, President Trump was able to fill empty seats on the Court with Justices who interpret the 2nd Amendment as Written. Imagine where the 2nd Amendment would be had Hildabeast been elected and allowed to fill those vacancies. As much as some people like to complain that He didn’t do enough for Firearms Rights. His legacy has done more than He ever could as President.

  5. I particularly like Thomas making reference to the 6th Amendment, sure looks like a notice to the Senate about their Red Flag bill.

    • As I pointed out to my chick in the Senate, the decision points out that ALL these new age BS restrictions are UNCONSTITIONAL. Put the brakes on that sillyass bill.

      • Call and leave Joni another message, and another. She’s really sunk during her first term from the “castrating hogs” label that got her in the first term. The female victim thing isn’t doing well.

    • jwm,

      I enjoying a nice Caol Ila 18, neat. Toasting to Clarence Thomas, and enjoying the smell of napalm in the morning. Clarence Thomas nuked their sorry @$$es, then “made the rubble bounce”.

    • Kerry,

      Yeah, I read that the same way. A pre-emptive “shot across the bow”. Not betting that they’ll pay attention, but that definitely reads like an “I DARE you!”.

  6. It’s almost as if all those threats from the racist, violent leftists aligned with the Democratic party didn’t impress the majority of the justices.

    • Trees need liquid as well as manure. Helps them to bloom. Check out your compatriots MarknSam on da yoo-toobs if you haven’t already. Good stuff from the Land Down Under.

  7. Most significant far reaching court decision in decades and all 3 major TV networks lead with the phony ass “Jan 6” hearing and the pimping their fraudulent story of an honest election. They do show the depth of DOJ corruption is breathtaking.

  8. ‘NYSRPA v. Bruen Finally Confirmed What Gun Owners Knew All Along’

    There, I fixed it for you TTG, you’re welcome.

  9. Biden. Joe Biden says the Court does not show “Common sense”. That some laughable stuff. The MSM progs are unhinged. Wait for the Infanticide ruling.

    • the founders and even modern historians recognize that polities that had their citizenry armed with their own weapons were much less likely to have tyranny or tyrannical acts. Not just in the important English history in congressional researcher work. You should read up on ancient greece, especially Athens and the hoplite system. Victor Davis Hanson.
      Citizens access to weaponry, and resistance to government monopoly on arms run into deep history. More government monopoly on force equals more mass killings of civilians by government, and more tyranny by government

      • The “Athenian Constitution” is available at Yale, part of the Avalon Project. A couple of my ‘pet’ quotes:

        In the Time of Draco:

        “Such was, in outline, the first constitution, but not very long after the events above recorded, in the archonship of Aristaichmus, Draco enacted his ordinances. Now his constitution had the following form. The franchise was given to all who could furnish themselves with a military equipment.”

        And later:

        “After his (Pisistratus) victory in the battle at Pallene he captured Athens, and when he had disarmed the people he at last had his tyranny securely established, and was able to take Naxos and set up Lygdamis as ruler there.”

  10. There are two problems with this ruling. First, the purported “test” is almost completely undefined. There is no “bright line” for what a Democrat stronghold can do with regard to licensing, storage requirements, insurance, making certain types of guns illegal, etc. etc. etc. They’ve already done a lot of these things so the struggle is far from over. Bruen only settles that there is an amorphous right to carry outside the home but leaves open whether states can still regulate the heck out of that right. He should have finished the logical chain and found that no licensing requirement left to unelected bureaucrats or elected politicians for implementation can be administered in a sufficiently neutral fashion to protect the right.

    Second, the ambiguity appears to leave open the definition of history to the presiding judges. Activist judges in the usual jurisdictions will declare that their history is one of repression and disregard for the right so they’re going to keep doing it. Sure, they’ll get smacked down. Eventually. Maybe in another ten years.

    The hope now is that the Bianchi v. Frosh assault weapons case gets fast-tracked and released very, very soon. Perhaps that case will confirm that self-loading rifle technology is about 140 years old now and very, very common. They are in common use unlike “military” select-fire weapons. A decision along these lines would limit localities’ ability to weasel-word their next repressive ordinances a great deal.

    • More good news.

      Since the SCotUS ruling was based on history, gun registration should be on the chopping block because registration is a relatively new development, and didn’t exist at the time the constitution was written.

      C’ mon, California. Get cracking on fighting your mandatory registration…

    • News just in:
      Louisiana citizens who are Honorably discharged veterans and active duty military no longer need a CHP. Louisiana Governor Edwards signed Senate Bill 143 June 18 and it was just reported this afternoon. Effective August 1, 2022.

  11. It’s early yet and, IANAL, but, my reading of Thomas’ statement that, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” may, in the long run, be the foundation that national constitutional carry is built upon. After all, it is not a long trip from “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” to, We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special *qualifications*.

    • US gun owners will now safer and so with their families. They will have more ability to protect themselves and their families from the predators the left has unleashed onto our streets causing this amazing crime wave (which is worst in Dem run gun control heavy cesspools).

  12. Man, it must REALLY suck to be MinorIQ or dacian the stupid, right about now. Sorta shoots about 95% of their ignorant drivel right in the head.

    Although reading SCOTUS opinions is ALWAYS a slog, Thomas’ is better than most, pretty digestable, and BRILLIANTLY addresses the “history” portion, leaving little wiggle room for gun grabbers to use.

    Hoplophobic idiots like the 9th Circus will undoubtedly do their damndest to shuck, jive, evade, and escape, but . . . Thomas didn’t leave ’em much room. They will do it, just as a time-wasting measure, but at least until the Dimocrats succeed in packing the court (which they will now redouble their efforts to do), the outcome is clear.

  13. Who the F*&# cares what the supreme court says? Unlike most politicians, like the current POTUS, I have read the entire constitution and the bill of rights. It’s really simple. I have a rights to have a semi auto rifle. There I clarified it for you. Really simple. I hope they outlaw ar15’s. After the first about 20 all out fire fights, no one will be coming for your guns. It really is that simple. Some things are more important than life itself.

    • Whether you go to prison or not matters. Whether the 95% of gunowners who fully comply with laws exercise their rights depends on the current laws. This decision is a very important one and you should not be downplaying it.

    • @Wally – This decision preserves our rights without resort to the AR-15 gun battles you envision. I’m not sure why you’d rather have those instead of this excellent court decision. You seem to be advocating anarchy…

    • Your own quote is why this decision matters “…. I have read the entire constitution and the bill of rights. It’s really simple. I have a rights to have a SEMI AUTO rifle.”
      NO, YOU DONT. You have bought into the compromise. Nowhere in the bill of right/constitution does it say you have a right to a SEMI AUTO. You have the right “to keep and bear arms” and it DOES NOT LIMIT you to semi auto. The ruling class limits you at semi auto.

      I am old enough to remember when antigun politicians would be on stage for a national debate and say things like “the 2nd amendment only applies to the national guard. The 2nd amendment isn’t a individual right”. You still have some east coast/west coast liberals that will still spout that but now you hear “I support the 2nd amendment but”. The last guy that openly wanted to come after guns was Beto and he is still a very successful political loser. What changed? Heller confirming it was a individual right. So the cases matter.

      Finally if you really think 20 firefights would stop all gun confiscation you have a lot more faith in the media then 99.99% of the people on here. You think the media is going to openly report a fire fight over gun confiscation? 19 state and DC have red flag laws already. My guess is each location has had at least one gun fired at officers during a confiscation and yet the senate is looking to add more states to the list. 20 shootouts and you haven’t heard anything about it. And they are pushing for more. Good luck with your shootout when they come for your AR. I am sure people will read about it buried between a JCPenney underwear ad and harbor freight coupon flyer………….if your lucky.

      • IN Dave, what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand? No where in the 2nd Amendment does it limit what guns might be owned. Apparently you need to READ the Heller, Mac Donald and NYSR&PA decisions in total. I would not suggest you send any of your gun confiscation folks my way. They will be met with I will not comply!

        • Very good Walter, you just said the exact same thing I said. Either that or you didn’t read the entire text of what I said because you are still butt hurt that I provided proof that the recent gun ban came from Republican leadership and not some rogue RINO senators. (Please see paragraph 2: “You have the right “to keep and bear arms” and it DOES NOT LIMIT you to semi auto. The ruling class limits you at semi auto.”)

          Your bill of rights lesson should really be directed at Walley1 as he believes it gives him a right to a semi automatic rifle. I disagree because the 2nd amendment does not limit citizens to semi autos. But yet here we are with people that are just happy as clams to be “allowed” to have semi-autos, not realizing that the infringement is already done, as you cannot buy a new fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.

          As for your “ I would not suggest you send any of your gun confiscation folks my way. They will be met with I will not comply!”. If I meet one I will let them know to stay clear of Walter, for everyone’s sake. But once again you missed the mark. If you really believe that the media will give you fair coverage then I got some ocean front property to sell you. If someone comes for your guns and you refused to comply the all they are going to do is firebomb your house and shift through your ashes later. Unless you have 40 kids living with you it won’t even make the news. If you do have 40 kids living with you then they will still do it and tell the news crews how crazy you were. This is what I was telling Wally1 when he assumed that 20 shootouts would make enough ruckus that they would back down. Hate to tell you 20 shootouts over red flag laws have come and gone, but the media isn’t going to give our side a chance to hear a rallying cry.

        • IN Dave, Not hardly Lefty. It seems you have a problem with the Constitution. Well, Little Fella, it you don’t like the way it is written, you can either follow the amendment section, try to call for a Constitutional Convention (which won’t happen) or LUMP IT. For your edification the 2nd Amendment does give us al the right to a semi-auto rifle. Again, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It would be an EXCELLENT idea to keep your gun confiscation folks far, far away from me. I don’t give a rat’s behind of the media covers me or not. IN spite of your Leftist control freak ideas, I still have my rights. And Lefty, I will exercise them. Put that in your pipe and smoke it with your crack..

  14. As far as the 18-21 question, it could be handled by a form the person files to be an adult(if they are living on there own, married or not still in school). It could be a rubber stamp type of deal, but college students going to school on their parents’ dime are NOT adults in my opinion. They should be allowed to be children until they are 21 without the responsibilities of adulthood. They also should not be able to vote, sign contracts(larger than a cellphone contract). If they wish to get married, file the paper at city hall if between 18-21.
    My grandparents were on their own at 17 and 13, the other side was 14 and she came from Ireland at 16. They managed. I was 17 when I moved out, but I have known many people into their 30s that were very irresponsible.

    • Your rights do not depend on proving responsibility. You don’t only get a right to jury trial, free speech, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc if you are “responsible” according to some government bureaucrat’s decision

  15. Excellent, and congratulations. And while it may not apply specifically to Canada it does apply, most specifically, to Human Rights across the board. Our difficulties and injustices stem not from the lack of a Second Amendment, per say, but from the (likely intentional) omission of such a recognition. English Common Law, the cradle of both our systems of Constitutional leanings, makes it clear that this most fundamental right, which all living beings by nature and necessity inherently possess, is to be recognized by our courts of law and by our elected representatives, pandering grifters that they are. This ruling and it’s inevitable repercussions bolsters my hopes for our situation up here. One can never have too much ammo, even if some of the cartons containing the rounds are imported. Labelling a Right a privilege does not make it so.

  16. Funny that the Leftist justices wanted to try to base gun bans on what they did in England in the 1400s. If Americans wanted to base their freedom on what England did in the 1400s we’d still be English! LOL! We would never have written the Constitution to correct the problems with the English system.

  17. Thanks for the analysis and write up LKB. As always it was a great read. It seems that Thomas was out for blood. Everytime I read his quotes on this it seems like he was adding enough to keep this vast reaching and put lower courts on notice how cases would be decided if the current Supreme Court had to weigh in again. An example of this is when he quoted the 6th amendment and someone being able to confront their accuser. Is it just me or with Thomas jumping from the 1st to the 6th amendment almost seem like he was telling states that due process must be involved with “red flag laws” or they will be on their way out too?

  18. In a concurring opinion, the Justice kept asking why NY lawyers spent so much of their case noting the social implications of overturning Buren. Interestingly, the concurring opinion did not (nor did Thomas), make clear that there can be no compelling interest of government that is greater than the rights of the people protected by the Constitution. “Compelling government interest” is nothing more than a sly, and dangerous means of modifying the Constitution, without the frustrations of going through the amendment process.

    “Compelling interest” arose from, and became the source, for the claim that nothing in the Constitution is absolute. A claim that in and of itself declares that government must, and of right ought to, have a means of evading the Constitutional Amendment process when it suits government.

  19. The goddamn fucking bastards just passed the new bill in the Senate. The House will absolutely pass it. MOTHER FUCKER. There are lots of very well informed and intelligent people here, can anyone give me any hope on this?

    • “There are lots of very well informed and intelligent people here, can anyone give me any hope on this?”

      IANAL, but the ‘Bruen’ decision leaves open the possibility that the part that criminalizes a private sale of a firearm that someone made a profit on, should be ripe for challenge under Bruen, since private sale of firearms has been happening literally since the founding of this Republic.

      Simply getting more for it than you paid for it means nothing, once you factor in inflation.

      We’re gonna have to start throwing *everything* against the wall and see what sticks…

  20. “There are lots of very well informed and intelligent people here, can anyone give me any hope on this?”

    Check back in ten years, or so. We may then have another SC ruling that again says, “This time we really mean it”.

  21. Gov Hochel, you can have all the gun control laws you want to sign. They just have to be constitutional.

  22. The Illinois Supreme Court recently kicked the FOID as unconstitutional case back to the lower court for a 3rd time now with more restrictive views and tell the lower court judge what will be allowed for him to do. Basically, tell the lower court judge to not find the FOID as unconstitutional in Illinois. We are in a restrictive state and how does this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court help us or any other state when the Federal Appeals courts are stacked against the 2nd Amendment in so many regions. Just does not restore our rights in Illinois or other restrictive states. We still have to ask permission from the state Illinois to bear arms by obtaining a FOID card. Something the New York governor has already said she and the commiecrats will implement in their state. Just a New York twist on the new restrictions on bearing arms along with the other commiecratic states. The U.S. Supreme Court just left open another restrictive hole to the 2nd Amendment that New York and like minded states will use against us. It is slow progress for us, but states can implement restrictions faster than they can be overturned. It takes decades to overturn 1 law that restricts our 2nd Amendment rights if they ever get to see the light of day at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Why the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on constitutionality of FOID Act again
    https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/courts/2022/06/17/illinois-supreme-court-declines-rule-foid-act-second-time/7660256001

    • We should never forget that Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts really stabbed this great 2nd Amendment chance and us in the back by Justice Kavanaugh’s 3 page opinion in the case by saying it is legal for states to impose restrictions our rights, thus limiting the reach of this case by the majority. We are still stuck with a state giving us permission to bear arms like Illinois and other restrictive states. This case still has not pushed the 2nd Amendment needle forward enough.

      “First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue”regimes—that are employed in 43 States.”

      “Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States.”

      • I think you are sort of mis-interpeting that section. It can’t be read as if in a vacuum and/or stand alone as if it is the decision, its to be interpreted in context with the decision.

        • This case does not prohibit states from imposing shall-issue on the population based on Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts opinion within the bounds of this case. It reinforces a states right to grant permission to a person to have firearms within the already shall-issue scheme. You will still have to be fingerprinted and all the other crap to be allowed to carry a firearm in public. No choice here for the population as open or concealed, it is what the state will allow you to have once again with restrictions. Your only choice in states like Illinois is concealed with the state giving permission to carry. Maybe Illinois is different from other shall issue states but, you have to get permission first to own a firearm as the FOID and then permission to carry the CCL in Illinois. New York will probably take a similar approach. You will still have to get permission to own or have a firearm and ammunition in that case like in Illinois. New York and the other may-issue states will follow the Illinois model to some degree. Picture ID with a background check that expires every 5 to 10 years to possess firearms and ammunition, then CCL with fingerprints and other requirements to carry that expire every 5 to 10 years. The 2nd Amendment does not expire on any date or has an expiration date for permission to possess firearms and ammunition. Illinois (Chicago commiecrats) want to go even further by imposing fingerprinting to even allow one to possess firearms and ammunition in the state is being proposed for several years now. It is still like may-issue, but with a twist of the state saying you will have to apply to get permission to possess firearms and ammunition and carry. So, what am I missing or misinterpreting. If you do not live in a state like Illinois with over 2.5 million registered gun owners or similar states (key point is registered), you have to abide by their laws to possess firearms and ammunition and only have one choice for carrying it is still a restrictive right. It is just another slipper slope to restrict the 2nd Amendment by placing road blocks to get permission from a state to possess firearms and ammunition and the type of carry you would choose.

          Taken from Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act
          “(430 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-1)
          Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24-3.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.”

          Then there is the FOID Modernization Act in Illinois that was recently passed that TTAG has discussed much that will come to New York and the other 5 states.
          Enhances Private Firearm Transfer Requirements:
          Allows for person-to-person transfers to be subject to NICS at an FFL dealer or;
          Allows for person-to-person transfers using the ISP person-to-person FOID verification system
          Buyer shall provide a record of the transfer to an FFL within 10 days of sale
          Buyer does not have to keep a record of the transfer
          No penalty for failure to send transfer record to an FFL
          Buyer must, upon demand of a peace officer, identify the FFL where the transfer is maintained
          Seller has to maintain the record of the transfer per existing law for 10 years
          FFL may charge a fee if they accept the transfer record of no more than $25

  23. Smoking a cigar, drinking a great rye whiskey, and making sure my guns are well cared for ….. what better way to celebrate Justice Thomas’ birthday and this monumental decision.

  24. My lawsuit challenging California’s bans on carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns in public has already been argued before the 9th circuit. It is being held pending the disposition of the Young v. Hawaii handgun Open Carry cert petition (Mr. Young abandoned his concealed carry claim before the 9th circuit en banc panel).

    Justice Thomas created a very high bar for gun laws. The State of California conceded in 2015 that we have a right to openly carry firearms, specifically handguns, beyond the curtilage of our home. The State could not point to any American law in effect in 1791 that prohibited the Open Carry of long guns or handguns or any subsequent laws within Justice Thomas’ historical timeframe in support of California’s Open Carry bans. As Judge Berzon, the presiding judge in my case, correctly pointed out during the oral argument in my appeal, California did not ban loaded Open Carry until the 1960s.

    I expect an opinion fairly soon.

    • “My lawsuit challenging California’s bans on carrying loaded and unloaded rifles, shotguns, and handguns in public has already been argued before the 9th circuit. ”

      Hi, Charles. It has been quite awhile since you last commented here. Good to hear from you again.

      • Thanks, it has been quite a while since anything happened that is particularly relevant to my California Open Carry lawsuit prior to NYSRPA that was worth commenting on. The last few docket entries in my appeal have been trivial, such as the original state’s attorney leaving the DOJ, his replacement, and the AG adding a second attorney to represent Governor Newsom and himself.

        If Young v. Hawaii is reversed and remanded then the entries in my court docket are going to get pretty interesting.

  25. @LKB: Thanks for this analysis. I have followed up on your suggestion to read the decision, and found something interesting. Pages 45-46 say this:

    “The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), is particularly instructive. Georgia’s 1837 statute broadly prohibited “wearing” or “carrying” pistols “as arms of offence or defence,” without distinguishing between concealed and open carry. 1837 Ga. Acts 90, §1. To the extent the 1837 Act prohibited “carrying certain weapons secretly,” the court explained, it was “valid.” Nunn, 1 Ga., at 251. But to the extent the Act also prohibited “bearing arms openly,” the court went on, it was “in conflict with the Constitutio[n] and void.” Ibid.; see also Heller, 554 U. S., at 612. The Georgia Supreme Court’s treatment of the State’s general prohibition on the public carriage of handguns indicates that it was considered beyond the constitutional pale in antebellum America to altogether prohibit public carry.”

    This is 1846, 22 years before the 14th Amendment was adopted, and 164 years before McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states. Why does the Georgia Supreme Court decision act as if the 2nd Amendment matters against a state law?

    I don’t think this is the Georgia constitution; this modern decision makes no mention of that, and if it were the state constitution, I’d expect at least some mention of the differences.

    There are several other similar state Supreme Court decisions from before 1868.

  26. I love how they pass this, but slap down a Miranda rights case at the same time and are going to leave abortions up to states and y’all riding their dicks hard like they are on your side. Lol.

  27. Now that its finally official, that the Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right’ nor are gun owners ‘second class citizens’ because they choose to exercise that right and that neither can be subjected to the whims of anti-gun and government entities simply because they say so or burdened with arbitrary restriction because someone else decided to do something bad and also once again reinforces a right to defense of family and self not only in the home but outside the home as well – but not only that but its also finally official in that context the Second Amendment applies to and protects ownership (by extension sales and purchase), possession, and use of arms “in common use” of which the MSR and handguns are many.

    That about right?

    • “That about right?”

      We won’t know for about another ten years, or so.

      Immediately, one thing comes to mind: having made his point, will Justice Thomas retire? Given his age, we are facing another RBG potential. But, retiring now means the same thing. If Republicrats manage to forfeit the House, Senate and Presidency, Thomas will have to give serious thought to his situation.

      • He has to hold on till the senate swings back to us. If neccessary put him on life support! Any pick from president houseplant would be just horrible in every possible way.

        His last moron was incapable of defining a woman. His next pick will likely be incapable of defining a Law.

        • “He has to hold on till the senate swings back to us.”

          Never underestimate the skill of the Republicrats to bungle a political advantage…as was done with the latest gun control legislation (and will be done with the coming bill to grant amnesty to illegal aliens).

  28. With more people starting to exercise and care about their 2A rights in places like California and the Northeast, anti-gun views might become limited to mostly just the “ruling class”. One can hope!

  29. We have won, but remember, the other side will not accept the loss and go home, so we cannot accept the victory and go lay on the couch.

    The left will continue, in the “Evil 6” (California, New york, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island) to undermine the entire spirit and letter and ruling of the court. To those states, the constitution is birdcage liner.

  30. Another point I forgot to address earlier was Constitutional Carry. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts did not hint or even discuss anything about Constitutional Carry or support it as an option. I thought the number of shall issue states was reduced from the 43 states that is written by Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts in this case since, 25 States have Constitutional Carry currently is puzzling in many ways. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts wanted to restrict the breath of the case in the expansion of 2nd Amendment rights. I guess they wanted to give New York and the other states the right to still restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. It is just a small win for us living outside of New York and these other 5 states, but a large win for individuals living inside of these may-issue states. Illinois will be the model they will use to restrict 2nd Amendment rights because it has been used since 1968 without many changes or challenges in the courts.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here