Supreme Court to take up major Second Amendment concealed handgun case

NBC ^ | 04/26/2021 | Pete Williams

[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.”

[TBP]

If we win this, the Dhimmicraps will simply work harder at court packing.

[DoughtyOne]

These judicial picks seem to go through a process that does
not serve us well. We can go back to Sandra Day O’Conner,
and imagine what Reagan must have thought after pushing her
through.

I suspect it’s at least in part the fault of the Federalist
Society who passes these names along as good candidates.

Who among us truly knows how good a judge really is? I have
no record of what they have done in the past. I’d imagine
Trump was pretty much in the same boat on that.

I didn’t read one bad word about Amy Coney Barrett. I was
looking forward to her on the court.

So far I’m not very impressed.

We have people who travel through the forum and take pot
shots at Trump from time to time. People get pretty
defensive, because there really wasn’t anyone better
in 2016.

Anyone else would have been eaten alive by what Trump had
to face.

People get tired of seeing him criticized.

[Theoria]

[Jonny7797]

I second that. I am way beyond listening to any government trying to restrict my God given rights.

[DoodleBob]

The unfortunate reality is Justices tend to become more liberal over time. There is a metric called the Martin-Quinn Score that attempts to measure this tilt. This plot of MQ scores over time demonstrates this liberal-time series trend:

This nifty graphic of MQ scores for the 2020 term gives you a sense of just where the noobs have landed. Ruh roh.

Those of you with copious free time and a peculiar interest in this topic can read the MQ details here.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the graphic and the comments related to it.

I think of it as a snowball going down hill.

The further the Leftist lean was in past decisions, the further
left the next step takes you.

It builds.