Is this what we have been waiting for? Updated 4/26

[ladder13]

BREAKING NEWS.

Looks like SCOTUS is taking up the NY case. More to follow.

 

[FlyFish]

200 years ago the conditions under which the 2A was written were a whole lot different.. Imagine 200 years from now what the types of weapons available will be???? But no matter what safety, will always be a concern for many folks...

When the Constitution was written and ratified, private citizens were allowed, and in many cases expected, to own and carry exactly the same types of arms carried by the military, just as it should be today. Yes, technology changes. There was no TV, radio, or internet in the late 18th Century. Would anyone today use that to argue that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should not extend to those media?

There is a procedure for changing the Constitution via Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those opposed to our 2A rights are entitled to use it if they don't like our current Constitutional guarantees. Good luck with that.

 

[ladder13]

You can come up for air now.

 

[dockmurgw]

When the Constitution was written and ratified, private citizens were allowed, and in many cases expected, to own and carry exactly the same types of arms carried by the military, just as it should be today.

I never gave much thought to this argument in the past, but then I read this...now I wonder what we will need to protect ourselves from governors that want to keep us safe.

California National Guard put fighter jet on alert in March 2020 for '''possible domestic mission''': report | Fox News

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Both FOX and CNN commence their online coverage of this case with this:

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a major gun rights case over whether ordinary citizens can be legally prohibited from carrying concealed handguns for self-defense outside their homes.

This appears to be a very narrow issue and in my opinion will not have a significant impact overall on gun rights. They can use Heller and McDonald to narrowly rule on New York's concealed carry permits without broadly ruling on anything else.

 

[bushmaster1313]

This appears to be a very narrow issue and in my opinion will not have a significant impact overall on gun rights. They can use Heller and McDonald to narrowly rule on New York's concealed carry permits without broadly ruling on anything else.

I respectfully disagree.

The Supreme Court will need to answer the following questions:

1) Does the right to bear arms include the right to carry a gun outside the home. My take: Duh. If the 2A protects the right to keep a handgun in the home it must protect the right to bear it outside the home.

2) If yes to the above, the next question is: Can a State force an ordinary individual to show a special need before being allowed to exercise this right. My take: This is an important issue going to the foundation of our Constitutional Liberties. Can the Goverment force a person to show why they need to exercise a Right protected by the Constitution more than the average Joe or Jane. Imagine a court saying to an individual: Why do you need to practice religion; Why do you need to read a newspaper; What’s so special about your case that you need a lawyer; Why do you need Due Process; What’s so special about your privacy. Of course, this would be preposterous. And that is why this is an important case.

 

[GaryS]

This is the quote from the grant of certiorari .

"NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the State's denial of
petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for
self-defense violated the Second Amendment. "

The question itself is narrowly worded, which is fairly typical of the way the the Court likes to operate.

This will mostly effect not only New York, but other "may issue" states since those are the ones that are problematic. My state is one of those and I expect our anti 2A Attorney General to petition to file an Amicus brief.

The problem with your argument (as of now) is that the standard for reviewing Second Amendment cases is "Intermediate Scrutiny." That's unlike the First which is reviewed under "Strict Scrutiny."

The effect is that the Second Amendment is treated as a second class civil right. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. It would be nice if the Court decided to apply strict scrutiny and change the standard.

At the least, I expect Justice Thomas to bring that up.

I respectfully disagree.

The Supreme Court will need to answer the following questions:

1) Does the right to bear arms include the right to carry a gun outside the home. My take: Duh. If the 2A protects the right to keep a handgun in the home it must protect the right to bear it outside the home.

2) If yes to the above, the next question is: Can a State force an ordinary individual to show a special need before being allowed to exercise this right. My take: This is an important issue going to the foundation of our Constitutional Liberties. Can the Goverment force a person to show why they need to exercise a Right protected by the Constitution more than the average Joe or Jane. Imagine a court saying to an individual: Why do you need to practice religion; Why do you need to read a newspaper; What’s so special about your case that you need a lawyer; Why do you need Due Process; What’s so special about your privacy. Of course, this would be preposterous. And that is why this is an important case.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I expect the court to dodge the scrutiny test and say it violates any level of scrutiny for a state to force an ordinary person to justify why they need to exercise a Constitutional right.

 

[LostintheOzone]

The case basically addresses may issue and shall issue. Where some states have no permits for open or even concealed carry and most states have shall issue, the states with may issue, which are few, are behind the curve and normal acceptance of carry outside the home.

My feeling is when most states accept something as the norm, the SC follows their lead and makes the outliers conform. It happened with SSM.

The constitutional 2A question is unanswerable because it was directed to a situation that no longer exists. One's RKBA is a situation that does exists and state constitutions and legislation has addressed it just about every way imaginable.

I'm not a proponent of the federal gov't or the SC dictating to states what they should and shouldn't be doing but ones RKBA is a fundamental right that they need to accept. They can fashion any restrictions they want but in the end they need to recognize that they need to issue permits based on background checks and not some elected or appointed LEO.

The fact is concealed carry has not increased crime and persons that do conceal carry legally have a very low rate of convictions for violent crime. Actually less than LEO's.

My guess is that if the SC does take a case for shall issue it will be a big win for RKBA.

 

[The.Doctor]

I'm getting involved late here and I didn't read every post.

The Militia question was addressed in the Heller decision.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia"

 

[schutzen-jager]

Originally Posted by glowe View Post
I am not surprised by the cases turned down so far by the Court. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has not yet been given a case that can impact the issue regarding suppressing the 2nd Amendment on a National basis. I feel that individual state cases will never be accepted by the Court, since they would result, at best, in affecting one state's laws. We need a case that can and will be leveraged across all states. Unfortunately, that would most likely be contesting a law passed by US Congress that negatively impacts our 2nd Amendment rights . . . just guessing.

I think the above ^^^ is wrong.
The case out of New York would allow SCOTUS to decide two important nationwide issues:

1) Does the 2A protect a right to bear arms outside the home, and if so:
2) The level of scrutiny for laws infringing this right

glowe is correct in his statement based on many past precedents + logic - any changes will have to be on a state level -