This looks like a big one kids. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take a look at a concealed carry and rights to self defense outside the home case next year. Arguments to be heard in the fall and decisions expected in the spring of 2022.
The Supremes rarely agree to review Second Amendment cases. They turned down several last year. On the plus side, the last two times they did review 2A challenges, they carved out some very pro-gun definitions on how the court views the Amendment.
Back in 2008, they saw D.C. v. Heller, where the District of Columbia law made it nearly impossible to buy or possess a gun. The Court found this was too restrictive, and added voice to the idea citizens had a right to have a handgun in their home for self protection and they did not have to be part of the militia to earn the right.
In 2010, the Supreme Court heard McDonald V. City of Chicago, and said the Second Amendment is a fundamental right and it applies to the states (and cities) via the 14th Amendment. We all know how Chicago’s very restrictive gun laws have been working out to limit violent crime-both before and after the McDonald case. Only 1035 shot so far in the first four months of 2021! This April was the highest homicide rate in Chicago in the past 11 years…oh and none of those shootings were linked to legal concealed carry permit holders.
In the offing for next year on the big DC field, is the case of NY State Rifle and Pistol Association V. Corlett challenging the highly restrictive New York Concealed Carry Laws that require the applicant for a carry permit demonstrate “Proper Cause” why they need a permit beyond the fact they just want one or want it for self-defense.
The court will look at the “Proper Cause” requirement (a nebulous and apparently nearly insurmountable phrase) as well as whether there is a right to self defense/concealed carry outside the home which is guaranteed or protected by the Second Amendment.
This case may well be a critical tipping point for restrictive laws in high crime Democratic controlled cities and states. Most statutes related to “Proper Cause” have dropped by the wayside as they were found to merely be ways to throttle the amount of concealed carry permits for the public and were rife with corruption for VIP’s to buy permits and the ordinary citizens could not.
Pro gun and Pro Constitution advocates, believe the Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect the rights citizens are born with- and it does not “grant rights” as some liberals claim. This battle of ideas has gone on for a couple hundred years, but has perhaps never been under this much high level attack. Even Old Sleepy Joe recently commented stating no amendment is absolute. Whaaa? (Well he may have actually been in one of his early terms in Congress when they were enacted…)
One thing to know about the Supreme Court, is they don’t like to take on cases with sweeping national changes. They review potential cases for cause, and they only take narrow swipes at defining if possible or returning it to lower courts for further work.
Hopefully, they will strike down the “Proper Cause” limits in NY, but they won’t want to make huge changes to all state laws like “Well if your state issued driver’s license is valid in every state, then it makes sense your state issued concealed carry permit should be valid in every state as well.”
The courts have allowed vast regulation of Second Amendment rights and weapons by states–incidentally, the only Constitutionally guaranteed rights to be treated this way. You don’t need a state license, registration or permit to go to church, gather in public or use free speech.
We may get a little more verbiage from the Supreme Court about self defense like we saw in Heller and McDonald to help solidify the concepts, and hopefully set the outer boundaries stating state’s can’t limit concealed carry without cause and claim it is fair to all.
Challenging guns and gun rights issues were long considered a political no-no when national candidates were running for office. However, this most recent election found anti-gun and anti-crime rhetoric to be a solid part of Democrat candidate platform. Current President Biden, may be supporting more anti-gun sentiment in his party than any other before him. This week ole Double Barrel Biden called on Congress in his address to the nation to ban “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines. He said it had been done before and “it worked!” Well, it was done in legislation Biden helped enact during the Clinton era. But all it did was limit imports of weapons and limited high capacity magazine sales for a period of years. Neither of which were ever identified as preventing any crime. All it did was put more odious laws on the books to apply against the law abiding citizens.
Couple this, with Biden’s announced intention to expand the Supreme Court during his time of office. This “Court Packing” would be designed solely to get more pro-liberal justices on the court, to overcome the current conservative majority, and you see how dangerous this party really is. They won the White House and would now like to change the make up of the Supreme Court? Talk about sore-winners.
The whole idea is ludacris. Some guys way back in 1776 and 1787 wrote some stuff down on how to run this new government to include three separate branches, Executive, Legistlative and Judiciary. The Executive should not be asking the Legislative to change the Judiciary. Hand off.
I have seen Biden advocating for adding 4 new judges to the Supremes. Why stop there? I also saw Twitter now claiming there exist up to 116 genders. Should not be much of a leap to have the liberals decide we need 116 genders on the court- instead of the two we have always had.
I have even seen (or started) internet rumors they would bring back Justice Ruth Ginsberg’s ghost via hologram, and let her vote some more. After all, now she’s just an “Undocumented Living Citizen” and no proof of ID will be required.