Supreme Court
The massive bronze doors of the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Previous Post
Next Post

By John Velleco

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen, a challenge to New York State’s discretionary concealed carry licensing scheme, which requires New Yorkers to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government bureaucrat that they have some sort of special, individualized, good cause before being permitted to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Since Heller and McDonald were decided in 2008 and 2010, the only time that a Second Amendment case has been before the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits was two years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol v. New York. Unfortunately, that case eventually was determined by the Court to be moot, after the city quickly moved to repeal its offending law, in a deliberate scheme to avoid a certain Supreme Court loss.

Justice Barrett’s addition to the Court, replacing Justice Ginsburg, has heightened the hopes of the gun community that the Supreme Court will bring the lower federal courts into line by finally requiring compliance with the Heller and McDonald decisions. We are optimistic that, with six Republican President-appointed justices, the Court will give gun owners a win in this case, but it’s entirely uncertain what any potential victory might look like.

Often, not much can be learned from oral argument, but a few observations should be made.

First, the over-arching issue continues to be how federal courts should decide Second Amendment challenges. The most reliable, pro-gun approach is using the “text and history” test that Justice Scalia used in Heller, which Justice Kavanaugh reframed as “text, history and tradition” in Heller II.

This textualist approach has been one of the consistent themes of Gun Owners Foundation’s litigation, now including almost 150 amicus briefs, as well as many other cases GOF is litigating.

Our persistent focus on the Second Amendment’s text is no surprise, as GOF was there at the birth of the Court’s approach in Heller, where our amicus brief urged the Court to decide cases according to what we called “text, context, and historic setting.” And that was what GOF argued once again in our amicus brief in this case.

Sadly, most federal courts never even look at the Second Amendment’s text, but instead jump headlong into a form of “interest balancing” such as strict or intermediate scrutiny. Indeed, gun rights-infringing states and cities inevitably argue for such a watered-down form of “interest balancing,” because it gives judges the power to decide which balancing test to use, and then how to apply it, thus teeing up gun control for an easy win.

Of course, “interest balancing” was the approach for which Justice Breyer unsuccessfully had advocated in dissent in Heller, but which the Court explicitly rejected.

In other words, “interest balancing” is the friend of activist judges who wish to ignore the text and undermine Second Amendment rights. As Justice Scalia stated in Heller, the Second Amendment is “the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and “the very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”

At oral argument yesterday, the Solicitor General of New York urged the Court to defer to New York’s conclusion that its citizens generally cannot be entrusted with the right recognized in the Second Amendment. The citizens’ need for self-defense was given short shrift. Indeed, Justice Breyer echoed this palpable distrust of law-abiding gun owners, opining that “when you have a self-defense just for whatever you want to carry a concealed weapon, you go shooting it around and somebody gets killed.”

The New York SG urged that local officials should be given “discretion” to make the self-defense decision for gun owners based on an amorphic “facts and circumstances” type of approach, so long as government bureaucrats consider “factors” and give “reasons” for denying people their Second Amendment rights.

Thankfully, this argument garnered strong pushback by several Justices including, surprisingly, even Justice Kagan, who opined that the Court “would never really dream of … allow[ing] that level of local flexibility … for the First Amendment or other constitutional rights.”

Justice Thomas objected to the New York SG’s argument that the Second Amendment should mean different things in different places, based on population density, asking “how rural does the area have to be before your restrictions shouldn’t apply?”

What was shocking was that the Acting U.S. Solicitor General, arguing for the United States, seemed to take the position that the “text” of the Second Amendment somehow supports gun control laws. How is that exactly?

Certainly, one could argue that the English “history” or “tradition” support one position or another…but the text itself? How could the 27 words of the Second Amendment — which demands that “the right of the people to … bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — somehow support requiring government approval in order to carry a firearm?

We must now wait for the Court to issue its decision, at which point we may find out why the Court narrowed the issue that it granted for review — “Whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” We hope that the Court will address the unconstitutionality of government licenses generally, not just the denial of the applications filed by the particular appellants before the Court.

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether a person should be required to obtain a concealed carry permit at all, theorizing that “regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system … the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”

Truer words have never been spoken.


John Velleco is the Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation. GOF is affiliated with Gun Owners of America and exists in order to educate the public about the importance of the Second Amendment and to provide legal, expert and support assistance in firearms-related legal matters.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I would submit the time for being “reasonable” is over in New York. Carry anyway. Your aim should be better than the Gestapo with the 15lb trigger(don’t be an Eric Garner).

    • Certain so called defenders of the 2A are responsible for milquetoast America seeing law abiding individuals exercising a Constitutional Right as nothing more than bigots with guns. The reason such slander is allowed to fly lands at the feet of certain defenders of the 2A who are habitually dead silent when it comes to defining Gun Control based on its racist and genocide roots.

      Failure after failure to define Gun Control for what history confirms Gun Control to be is why gun owners continue to trip over each other trying to justify the 2A. How many times have you seen gun owners attempt to logically define bear, keep, state, shall, not, commas, etc? All that defining just to politely convince the useful idiots in favor of Gun Control that people who own guns are really nice guys with gobs of common sense. Every time there is some court clown show The 2A is under the microscope all while Gun Control and its diabolical baggage flies right over the heads of well meaning gun owners and literally bombs them with poo.

      Milquetoast voting Americans who never touched a firearm have been duped into believing voting for democRats confirms they are not racist. And voting for The Party of Lincoln is the opposite therefore people assumed to be racists should not have guns.

      Failure to define Gun Control and allow any democRat to tie “racism” around the neck of the Party of Lincoln is exactly what keeps The 2A on the edge of a cliff. It’s profitable for some people to use courtroom drama to keep their contributors glued to their seats and always dependent on those stringing them along year by year, case by case.

      Until gun owners cut the chase and Gun Control is defined by its History each and every time Gun Control pops its despicable head up enjoy being fools waiting for a Perry Mason moment.

  2. Well, reading the decision and the other side’s dissent should give an indication as to how much further we could push for with the current court’s makeup.

    Firearm bans and mag capacity limits should be aggressively perused…

  3. “… this argument garnered strong pushback by … Justice Kagan …”

    I just had a horrific thought: what if both Kagan and Roberts side with the five conservative justices to ensure that Roberts assigns Kagan to write the decision?


    • I think that that could fail. Kagan would have to face the dissents that the other 5 justices write. She might not be willing to endure those dissents.

      This scenario contemplates that perhaps only Roberts would sign onto Kagan’s opinion. The other 5 might agree with the holding, but not the opinion.

      I don’t off-hand recall what I read about the significance of such an outcome; but, it’s not good. I think it’s called a “plurality opinion” and it means much less than an opinion where 5 justices agree to a common rationale. It would mean that the plaintiffs score a “win” but that the law remains unresolved.

      I wonder if the Young case pending serves as a backstop to such an outcome. The 5 could reach a conclusion that they will take Young and put Roberts and the Left Benchers in an untenable position. E.g., suppose (merely for illustration) that the five agree to a holding that Constitutional-Open-Carry is mandated by the Constitution. Roberts couldn’t join such a holding and assign the opinion to Kagan or to himself.

      My opinion here counts for very little. I’d like to see what Constitutional lawyers have to say about such a scenario.

      • Nope. If Roberts assigns it to Kagan, and 5 justices (Thomas, Alito, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, ACB) join in an opinion that rejects Kagan’s opinion as too narrow, then that 5-member opinion becomes the Court’s official decision and the Kagan-Roberts opinion becomes merely a concurring opinion.

        A plurality opinion would result if, say, you had 7 justices voting to overturn the lower court decision, but three joining a narrow opinion and rejecting a broader ruling and four doing the opposite. That lack of a majority on the reasoning would mean that while the decision is reversed there’s no clear opinion of what the law is.

        For that reason, plurality opinions are extremely rare. I think that is very unlikely in this case: Kanaugh, ACB, and even Roberts seemed to be singing from the right hymnal yesterday, and I have yet to read an analysis that isn’t predicting that “may issue” is going down 6-3.

        We may not get as broad a decision as we would like, but as things sit now I think the chances of an exceedingly narrow opinion are small, especially with Young and other cases pending.

        • Bless you LKB for stepping up and refuting my (amateur) understanding. I am delighted to learn that I am mistaken.

          So, I take it, that Kagan could write an opinion, Roberts concurring, that plaintiffs are entitled to their permits on some narrow (useless) ground. And, then, the 5 could write an opinion rejecting Kagan’s reasoning; putting forth a different rationale. And, it is that opinion of the 5 – not Kagan’s – which would constitute the Court’s holding and dicta.

          So, there is nothing to worry about here (with the possibility of Roberts assigning the opinion to Kagan).

          The only thing we must pray for is that the 5 hang-together on a relatively strong opinion based on as many rationales as possible.

        • “We may not get as broad a decision as we would like, but as things sit now I think the chances of an exceedingly narrow opinion are small, especially with Young and other cases pending.”

          Care to speculate on how the ruling might play out?

          What won’t we like?

      • I think if you don’t know what the f you’re talking about you should stay the hell out of the conversation.

        • Well AJG,

          Quite often we don’t know what we don’t know–and we learn a lot more when we engage in conversation in good faith.

          Since you clearly did not enter your comment in good faith, I will not read any more of your comments. And I doubt that anyone else will, either.

  4. I have jaded optimism (I know, that is somewhat of a contradiction) that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule as follows:

    — The Second Amendment applies outside the home just like it does inside the home.

    — The Second Amendment applies to “bearing arms” outside the home as well as keeping arms inside the home.

    — States must have a scheme were bearing arms outside the home is allowed by default.

    — States can define specific disqualifications for bearing arms outside the home such as for convicted felons and in “sensitive places”.

    What the U.S. Supreme Court will most certainly NOT do in their decision:

    — Limit the scope of “sensitive places”. A future lawsuit will have to determine that.

    — Ensure that licensing is “reasonable”. A future lawsuit will have to determine that.

    — Eliminate licensing. A future lawsuit will have to determine that.

    — Enact nationwide reciprocity. A future lawsuit will have to determine that.

    • I’m optimistic that SCOTUS will deliver a pro 2A decision, but I still worry. To paraphrase an enemy, “How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?”

      A good decision is one thing. Enforcing it is another.

      • The SCOTUS has the entire U.S. military and all federal law enforcement and DOJ because the President is obligated constitutionally to enforce a US Supreme Court decision. That’s how many “divisions” the Supreme Court has.

        • Leftist courts in leftist states routinely ignore the clear wording of the constitution, the highest law of the land. I get what you’re saying, but I suspect it won’t quite work out that way. Loopholes, obfuscations, excuses, and rationalizations will undermine whatever decision. I hope I’m wrong and you are right, but I lived in NY for decades, and the 2A means whatever progressives want it to mean there.

      • “Enforcing”

        They’ll enforce whatever is politically convenient for them.

        Our executive branch doesn’t care about law or precedent. Remember the last excuse for impeaching Trump? Abuse of power. What was the abuse? Delaying funds allocated to Ukraine. Not doing away with, but delaying slightly. LOL. Delaying for the purpose of bringing corruption to light. That isn’t abuse and everyone knows it. That’s what normal people call reasonable. The main reason we hand out so much money to other countries is so that we can exert influence.

        Contrast that with Biden completely scrapping the border wall construction after funds were allocated for it. What was the reason? So he could have open borders which also violate the law. Who’s abusing power again? This flagrant abuse is so common, people have become numb to it.

        • To Dud Brain

          quote————The main reason we hand out so much money to other countries is so that we can exert influence.—–quote

          One again you make an uniformed racist rant. The real facts are that the U.S. gives less of its Gross National Wealth to needy countries as compared to how much smaller European Countries give.

          Yes the overall total given is more from the U.S. but way less in the percentage of its wealth.

          Do other wealthy countries do their fair share?
          YES, relative to their economic size. The U.S. provides more assistance than any other country, which as the world’s wealthiest nation, is appropriate. There is a broad international commitment that wealthy countries should provide annually 0.7% of GNP to assist poor countries. Five countries (Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the U.K.) exceed that benchmark. The average for all wealthy nations is around 0.3 %. The U.S. ranks near the bottom at below 0.2 %.

          In other words the U.S. is comprised of a bunch of stingy, tightwad, racist, hilljacks that pretend to be generous but are are anything but generous when it comes to giving aid to needy countries.

          Now Dud Brain, you racist, try and lie your way out of this one.

        • Me: “we hand out so much money”

          lil’ d: “Yes the overall total given is more from the U.S.”

          Are you so desperate to argue with me, that you’re willing to prove my point for me? Wow…maybe you should start a hobby or something.

        • DACIAN, the DUNCE, Excuse me? Asde from the FACT that you are way off topic, why should we be supporting other so called “poorer” nations? If you want to contribute to a charity that does “anti-poverty” work, knock yourself out. And before you open your trap, Conservatives give far more to charity than you Socialists who expect the government to do your share. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s behind what your European Socialist countries give. Fact is that they are far more responsible for the poverty of Africa and Asia than the US ever dared.
          Speaking of racism, again? Is that the best you can do? Come up with your race card?

        • To shit for brains Dacian
          In turn, the United States spends billions more providing a defense umbrella for those countries who contribute a greater share of their GNP to foreign aid. Without that, those countries would not have two nickels to give to anyone.

          Now, shit for brains dacian, try to lie your way out of this one.

        • to Dacian: those European countries are free-riding on American military spending, so they get enormous subsidies from American taxpayers that dwarfs their foreign aid.

          Furthermore, ANY foreign aid from US taxpayers is wasted unless it directly furthers the interests of American citizens.

      • Let’s say SCOTUS holds, “there is a constitutional right to carry outside the home, and within certain limits states have to respect that,” but the Hawaii gov / AG / etc. say, “we disagree, and will continue not to issue any licenses,” then I think those Hawaii officials would personally be subject to 1983 suits for damages and would not enjoy qualified immunity.

        Instead, kind of like Chicago did after McDonald, they will delay and fiddle around . . . but even Chicago was ultimately told by the Seventh Circuit, “either adopt a regulatory scheme that is consistent with the Supreme Court decision within X days, or else the state is going to be Constitutional Carry until you do so.”

        I suspect NY will have to accept “shall issue,” but will require as heavy a load of training, insurance, etc. as they think they can get away with, and will classify as “sensitive places” as many places as they can. There will be, of course, be litigation over these . . . but for the burden will be on the state to show with evidence that such the restrictions are narrowly tailored / essential. In short, the “but guns are icky” rationale won’t work (but will, of course, be tried).

        • LKB,

          “… those Hawaii officials would personally be subject to 1983 suits for damages and would not enjoy qualified immunity.”

          You do realize that Far Left courts would have to cooperate in order for such lawsuits to proceed.

          Given all the garbage that I am seeing lately, I would not count on any cooperation from any Far Left court to hold Far Left party members to account, no matter how egregious the situation.

          Case in point: my school district began allowing boys (under the guise of accommodating “transgender” nonsense) to use girl’s locker rooms two years ago. We consulted with prominent attorneys who are on the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. (We were not messing around.) They advised us that the courts would likely fail us because they are sympathetic to Far Left “transgender” stuff. They also advised us that our local Far Left prosecutor would refuse to charge boys who expose themselves in girl’s locker rooms for the crime of indecent exposure.

          I basically have no faith in any branch of government at this time.

        • “I suspect NY will have to accept “shall issue,” but will require as heavy a load of training, insurance, etc. as they think they can get away with,…”

          Now that has the distinct stench of possibility, such as requiring the licenses to perform to police qualification standards on accuracy.

          There’s a hidden nugget of gold in there, that may mean police will find their qualification scores will be upped. And *that* would be an official Martha Stewart ‘Good Thing’ for the citizens, since police stray rounds tend to be poorly placed in a high-stress event.

          Or, I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue… 😉

        • How do you think this will deal with NYS carry permits not being valid in NYC? Would NYC still be allowed to require their own permits? And would NYC HAVE to issue permits to applicants?

        • @donttreadonme: I don’t see SCOTUS using this Bruen case to impose on states a constraint on municipal home-rule over guns. Until SCOTUS sees fit to enter the jurisdictional mess on intERstate carry we are a long way away from their imposing uniformity within each state.

          Fortuitously, the NY-Upstate/NY-City structure of the Sullivan law allows SCOTUS to confine its ruling to the diversity of rural-suburban-city jurisdictions without having to speak to major metro areas. That will be enough.

          As I see it, the “in case of confrontation” arrises anywhere. It may be with a bear; or, a rapist. As a legal distinction, it doesn’t seem to matter. Imagine an Alaskan Indian village; 100 residents, 1 cop; a 100:1 ratio better than any city in the country! In case of confrontation with a polar bear, the cop is too-little-too-late. Likewise in any city. In case of confrontation with a rapist, the cop is too-little-too-late.

          Likewise in Giants Stadium. 100,000 spectators (and popcorn vendors) packed shoulder-to-shoulder. If a deranged fan attacks a seat-mate a cop 40 rows away is too-little-too-late.

          The immediate objection is that any fan with a gun could kill many spectators before anyone else could stop him. Yet, this objection is interest-balancing. Once SCOTUS starts down this path there is no logical place to stop.

          Bruen is not the case to solve the “sensitive places” issue. In UpState NY there are lots of NON-sensitive places where permitted civilians may carry; and, some sensitive places where permitted civilians are forbidden to carry. The question in Bruen is confined to whether NYS may ration permits to civilians based on “need” or whim.

          The question beyond Bruen is the same. Can NYC ration permits to diamond merchants and billionaires based on “need” or whim?

          If permits are issued based on some objective criteria – lets say live-fire qualification score – then we can understand a different issue is at stake. Perhaps the denseness of population of NYC is such that a higher score is required than that chosen by the legislators in Rensaleir County.

    • The Court cannot enact national reciprocity. The closest it can get would be to eliminate any licensing requirement, and frankly I don’t think it will go that far, as a licensing requirement, even under a “shall issue” regime, can be used to filter out (most of) those who are otherwise disabled from possessing arms. In other words, under shall issue, the State can do a background check prior to issuing.

      • ” In other words, under shall issue, the State can do a background check prior to issuing.”

        Isn’t that what happens already when applying for an out-of-state carry permit?

        Are there states that routinely issue carry permits without at least a cursory background check (Felon, no Felon”?

  5. I think we are entitled to assume a win in Bruen. But, that said, we are NOT entitled to assume it will be as far reaching as we might reasonably hope for.

    The 5 justices who are initially inclined to be in the majority will, I think, try to come up with an opinion which is as strong as ALL of them can agree upon. And there is the constraint. Of the 5, 4 might want text, history and tradition but one might not go along. Of the 5, 4 might want strict scrutiny, but one might not go along. And so forth.

    So, the debate between now and June `22 will be over how much the 5 can agree upon. And, that might be very little. But that little could be just enough to move the ball forward in Bruen.

    The little we require is that “need” be ruled-out and that subjective qualifications be ruled-out. These seem reasonable expectations. If no other right could be admitted to be subject to “need” or subjective evaluation by an official then the 5 justices in the majority would be compelled to explain why they are acceptable Constitutionally for the 2A. And it is THIS that these 5 will not do.

    I don’t see why they must necessarily decide on either text, history and tradition nor to decide on strict vs intermediate scrutiny. They only need to decide that there is nothing in the Constitution or prior cases which supports “need” or subjectivity for an enumerated right. Nor is there any compelling reason to consider NYC or place means time issues.

    On this theory, there is room for plenty of dicta for how states (and municipalities) can define objective qualifications. And these objective qualifications will then be subject to judicial review. It will be very hard for the elite progressives to criticize such dicta. Then will begin the dance with the legislatures of the 8 states as to how they will try to make the most of that dicta.

    One by one, they will cave. Not quickly; it will be a gradual process. They will have to negotiate with their elite permitted constituents as to how much these constituents will endure. Can they meet the live-fire qualification standards? Will they pay the fees? Will they live with permits for each municipality where they travel? Will they agree to a no-DUI standard? Will they agree to no more than 3 divorces standard?

    • Will they agree to no more than 3 divorces standard?

      Well, there goes most military and law enforcement veterans.

      (BTW, excellent analysis MarkPA).

  6. The next big thing that needs to go to SCOTUS is the NY SAFE Act, and that in California also.

    • Sadly, the UNsafe act likely wont go. But magazine capacity restrictions, and so called AW bans need to get there for certain. If those things get tgere then the UNsafe act is mostly useless.

  7. I listened to the live feed yesterday and was impressed by the questions from the Justices.

    That they ran a good 70 minutes over their allotted time for the case gives hope that they are taking this seriously. I look forward to the outcome.

    • “That they ran a good 70 minutes over their allotted time for the case gives hope that they are taking this seriously.”

      Or, they were just going through the motions so they couldn’t be accused of glossing the issue over…

  8. speaking of court cases, ya’ll following the Rittenhouse trial – they released a never seen before video of the incident. Its thermal image video from an FBI helicopter that was flying over as the incident happened.

        • Hey TTAG, could a daily trial update be provided?

      • Yeah that “never seen before” video was ‘released’ in the comments sections days ago.

        With an overlay of a ground recorded video that was overlapped in real time with audio.

        Where Kyle was asking if anyone needed medical, when he was jumped.

    • .40 cal Booger,

      Do we know that infrared video came from a helicopter? My money is on a high-altitude drone.

      Also of significant importance: Kenosha covers more than a square mile–how did the videographer know to capture the particular location where Rittenhouse was running away from his initial attacker?

      • the thermal video was presented in court as from an FBI helicopter that was flying over as the incident happened.

        There were probably spotting crowds and just happen to zero in on this spot because of movement and gathering. If you look at the video closely there are other people around. The area Rittenhouse was in was a hot spot of activity anyway so they would have been looking at that area.

        • The were using FLIR, and people were setting fires, which Kyle was extinguishing. The fires would certainly “light up” the FLIR cameras.

          Flying a FBI drone over American soil doesn’t sound to good, now does it? Especially when in the lower left of the video, the word “ARMED” is displayed.

  9. I wonder what, if any, effect a ruling in the plaintiffs favor that would have on the Sullivan law? Would folks in NYC itself be able to get a concealed carry permit?

    • If the Supreme Court concludes that a “may issue” regime is unconstitutional, which the Sullivan Act is, then the Law will fall, although it may take a lawsuit to get NYC to comply. I would anticipate that NYC will pull the same sort of shenanigans that Chicago did when the Seventh Circuit told Illinois that it either had to adopt a shall issue system or the court would simply enjoin the current no carry law, resulting in Constitutional Carry. But eventually the dust settled, and it is not as big an issue as Chicago made it out to be. However, Chicago did enact an ordinance that made public transportation (buses, The El, and subways) sensitive areas. I believe that the trains that serve the outlying suburbs are Amtrack, and therefore no carry as well. So commuters are barred from carrying firearms to and from work. Presumably the same would happen in NYC.

      • “I believe that the trains that serve the outlying suburbs are Amtrack, and therefore no carry as well.”

        That’s a battle we could win.

        Between stations, passengers are stuck on the train, there’s no place to run away to.

        It’s possible the subway system could be forced to keep an officer in those trains, but that might be crippling expensive. Cheaper for the city to just allow lawful concealed carry on their trains.

        And it’s proven that those with carry permits are among the most law-abiding people in society, rarely ever committing crimes. Let the public handle transit security…

  10. My favorite line in the SCOTUS hearing is

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

    this was in response to some BS from New York that more permits are issued for rural areas presumably because some rapes happen on paths (in the woods). It drew some laughter.

    I guess New York is somehow special in that rapes don’t happen in non-rural areas where, according to her, much fewer permits are granted vs rural areas. So you can apply and get a permit if in a rural area juts by saying your need is because some rapes have happened on paths in the woods even though you have not been raped or attacked or anything but if you live in a non-rural in which for a fact more rapes and crime happen you can’t get a permit if you say some rapes have happened unless you know you are going to be raped or stand a chance of being raped. I wonder if the NY rapists have a web site where you can schedule your rape in a non-rural area so you can get a permit?

    • There is safety in numbers. And more police. Everyone knows that if you call 911, help will arrive in minutes.

      Or something like that. She lost biggly on this point since it contradicts common sense and actual experience. It was probably Roberts who commented that there are a whole bunch of people carrying firearms in NYC–they just don’t happen to be licensed.

      • You mean this section?

        JUSTICE ALITO: “There are — there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren’t there?”

        MS. UNDERWOOD: “I don’t know that there are a lot of armed people.”

        JUSTICE ALITO: “No?”

        MS. UNDERWOOD: “I think there are people –”

        JUSTICE ALITO: “How many — how many”

        MS. UNDERWOOD: — there are people with illegal guns if that’s what you’re –”

        JUSTICE ALITO: “Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about.”

        MS. UNDERWOOD: “– referring to. Yeah.”

  11. If you want to see how history and tradition can be twisted to achieve an anti-gun rights conclusion, read the en banc opinion of the Ninth Circuit in Young v. Hawaii. After reviewing that history, the Court concluded that the Sovereign had exclusive authority to provide for the safety of the people, that arms have been regulated and banned in public under the Northampton Law, and these and other factors establish that the right to bear exists only on one’s own property.

    Young is being held pending this case. Young asked for a permit to carry–Hawaii issues a single permit for open or concealed carry–which was denied for a lack of good cause. (Wild hogs in the jungle where he lives, or the fact that the police can take an hour or more to arrive, is not enough.) Parenthetically, it has been more than 23 years since Hawaii County has issued a carry permit to anyone who was not applying as a security guard. (That’s as far back as the records go.)

  12. What I want to know is: Where did the writer get that picture of Eleanor Roosevelt’s concealed carry permit?

  13. “GOF is affiliated with Gun Owners of America”

    Fun fact: The president of GOA/GOC until his recent death was H.L. Richardson who voted to ban Loaded Open Carry in California in 1967 and voted in 1981 to raise the threshold to carry a loaded firearm from a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury to “grave, immediate danger” and only then for the brief interval of time between notifying police and their arrival.

    He would file an Amicus brief in Peruta v. San Diego. As you may recall, the NRA in Peruta, and the SAF/CalGuns.nuts in the combined case Richards v. Prieto, argued that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry.

    • Mr Nichols, I would like to see your PROOF that the NRA eve said in any case that “it is constitutional to ban open carry”?

      • The NRA lawyer, Paul Clement, literally just said it on Wednesday in the oral argument to NYSRPA v. Bruen. The audio is on the Supreme Court website.

        He said it as well in Peruta v. San Diego en banc. His legal argument was that California can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, and that does not violate the Second Amendment. Audio and video of the oral argument are on the 9th circuit court of appeals website.

        What is your favorite NRA Kool-Aid? Purple?

        • Mr Clement is a LAWYER. He is not the NRA?
          What is your favorite color? Mine is RED, WHITE and BLUE.

  14. “Walter E Beverly III November 5, 2021 At 20:39
    Mr Clement is a LAWYER. He is not the NRA?
    What is your favorite color? Mine is RED, WHITE and BLUE.”

    This is why we have gun control, and this is why we have judges eager to uphold laws that violate the Second Amendment.

    It is also why the opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen is likely going to be a very narrow opinion.

    There are just too many stupid and immoral people in this country who can’t be trusted.

Comments are closed.