Posted on 04/26/2021 10:32:07 AM PDT by thegagline
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will consider how much protection the Second Amendment provides for carrying a gun outside the home. The case will mark the first time in more than a decade that the court agreed to take up a central issue of the gun rights debate, something it has consistently ducked since issuing a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self defense. The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self protection. The law "makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen" to get the necessary license, said Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the challengers. One of them, Robert Nash, said he was wanted to carry a gun in response to a string of robberies in his neighborhood. Another, Brendan Koch, also cited a desire to carry a gun for protection. Both men said they had completed gun safety courses, but both were turned down when they applied for permits. They joined a lawsuit challenging the law brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. New York bans carrying a handgun openly. The state law says anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon must demonstrate "a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession." The law is so restrictive, Clement said, that it cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court's "affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
But the addition of Amy Coney Barrett, providing a solid 6-3 majority, likely gave them confidence to take this latest case.
Solid as a marshmallow.
> Keep and bear = own AND carry What’s hard or unclear about that? <
The Supreme Court evidently uses different definitions than we do.
From the 6th Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...”
Did you notice the word “all” there? That means in each and every case, right? No, the Supreme Court has said. You only have the right to a jury trial if you’re facing more than six months imprisonment. So if the Feds decide to charge you with a crime carrying a six month sentence, no jury of your peers for you. Your fate is up to some judge. And if that judge is having a bad day, you’re screwed.
It’s disgusting.
NO WE DON’T!!
Yay Paul Clement!
I’m guessing that our Supreme Court will decide in favor of our Second Amendment rights on this issue in favor of all economic and social classes. We’ll see.
Do you think they’ll consider how many states allow concealed carry?
I'll need to learn more, but I don't believe this is about overturning a law in a unrestrictive state but overturning a law in a restrictive state, actually New York city, of NY.
BINGO! The Supremes definitely having something to say about this!
The GOOD states will simply ignore a negative decision and codify their own laws in line with or contrary to, the USSC decision.
I can tell you my thoughts, but I am by no means an expert
on the court.
The reason I’ve seen exhibited by the SCOTUS in recent
rulings leads me to also question that possibility. They
should. Then again, they shouldn’t have to. The Second
Amendment is perfectly clear. “Shall not be infringed!”
Can they even grasp that? I honestly don’t know.
The Left struck out the side when it came to the inning
with the last election in it, on some very clear cut
violations of the Constitution of the United States.
I am not encouraged by the thought they’ll be able to see
this any more clearly.
If they don’t start stepping up, we’re going to be
defenseless against the Left and its storm troopers.
It’s not safe out on the streets.
After their rulings or lack thereof concerning the 2020
election, I am concerned WHAT they will say.
Some states "get it" and have passed state laws allowing all law abiding citizens to CC without a license.
Our SCOTUS should have shot down all CC and open carry licensing laws long ago. 2A is a RIGHT! State laws that restrict law abiding citizens - CC and open carry - are plainly unconstitutional.
What are you a Democratic lurking here in FR land to spread misinformation and sew discontent? sounds like it.
Pretty much the opposite of your assessment
Sorry for the snarky stuff.
Bad day on a number of fronts.
My apologies.
All good. I am the king of snark and probably offend half the people on this site daily. I fully understand the frustration with the ever increasing absurdity of the world and the ease at which conclusions can be leapt to
This is virtually identical to the Peruta V San Diego case that SCOTUS refused to hear back when the Left ruled the court 5-4 (6-3 if counting Roberts as a liberal). If we don’t win this now, we will have lost the issue for at least a decade, maybe two, maybe forever.
I suspect we will win, but Roberts will vote with the majority. Being Chief Justice and with the majority, Roberts will then construct the Majority Decision in such a way that he dilutes and weakens the 2A, rather than finally giving us a ruling that upholds the constitution. 4 or even 5 Justices could write or sign concurring opinions that support full 2A rights, but only Roberts’ opinion will be precedent.
Necessary to a free state, shall not be infringed.
Anything and anyone else can sincerely KMA if they view it any other way.
Too bad we’re now stuck with them for DECADES.
And I will note the “God bless PDJT for KEEPING his campaign pledge to give us pro-life originalists in the Scalia mold” crowd hasn’t apologized for lashing out at anyone who questioned how “good” the appointments were at time they were announced...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.