This is great. I can now carry my pistol with me everywhere... : )
Posted on 06/23/2022 9:11:47 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 23 that New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance is unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association [NYSRPA] v. Bruen centered on denials for permits under New York’s concealed carry permitting law. The NYSRPA filed suit claiming that one of its members was eligible for a permit but was denied because of New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants prove why they need to carry a gun.
The case ultimately dealt with the scope of the Second Amendment — whether the right to keep and bear arms applies only in the home or outside the home as well.
When SCOTUS granted cert in the case the NYSRPA responded:
"This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right."
NRA-ILA director Jason Ouimet also commented on the suit after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it:
"Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm. This is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment. We look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended."
The immediate impact of the June 23 ruling is that New York’s proper cause requirement is struck down. What is yet to be seen is how this decision will impact other states–like California and New Jersey, both of which have concealed carry issuance guidelines similar to New York’s.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’ll still take years of lawsuits to stop the NY cops from enforcing illegal gun controls.
Several other huge threads...
This is good news...and upsets a lot of states who just make stuff up that are ridiculous.
They will just reword the laws and start all over again................
My favorite selected excerpts From Thomas Clarence’s Opinion...
(In Heller) we looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.”
After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct — carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does.
Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”
This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.
Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.
After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.
Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. “[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”.
The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.
The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Well hopefully this opinion will lead to the elimination of MARYLAND state’s ridiculously extreme requirements to get a concealed carry permit.
Interesting how every MSM story references mass shootings” but fails to note that the right to carry laws would not have prevented any of the
Shootings. Psychopath mass murders typically do not
Use handguns and they don’t care about permits
That's not true. The immediate impact is that all such state laws are struck down, not just New York's.
If politicians armed ukraine because they’re allies...
What’s the implication when they ‘disarm* their own citizens?
,———————————
GOVERNMENT
It killed 250 Million people last century... but
please feel free to lecture me about owning firearms.
‘-———————————
The men who wrote the second amendment did not just finish a hunting trip.
They just finished liberating a nation.
‘-———————————
When the prey is armed.
Predators think twice.
‘—————————————
Once upon a time, Patriots didn’t register their firearms with tyrants
They shot them.
‘-—————————————
The only reason why the government would want to disarm you after 243 years is because they intend to do something that you would shoot them for.
‘-—————————————————
Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs
I was considering reselling my guns to the government but after a quick background check discovered they have a history of violence and instability.
2:59 PM · Jun 21, 2022
This is an abstraction of the ruling. Seems to me their are so many laws that create felons. Some are just, like you can't assault, murder, steal. Others are not. Many are not even laws, but regulations never voted upon by congress. It is time to clean up our laws. Make them simple so everyone knows what they are. Remove the ambiguity and base them on sound legal principles that align with our Constitution. Make them apply equally to all, including everyone in Congress and in government.
Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs
I was considering reselling my guns to the government but after a quick background check discovered they have a history of violence and instability.
2:59 PM · Jun 21, 2022
The best line of the day...............
Good, now maybe Los Angeles County’s Sheriff will pull his
head out and start issuing.
I was pretty much down early this morning. It looked like the America I grew up in was gone forever.
The red flag law would make it possible for anyone to take our guns and that anyone who refused entry to government cops to prevent the taking of arms would be shot or arrested with the same fate as the 1/6 accused.
But this ruling by the supreme court gives us hope. I believe the congress violated two constitutional issues when passing the red flag law.
#1 The congress passed (another) law that was rightfully and constitutionally regarding a matter that should be decided by the states.
#2 The congress violated the 2Nd Amendment in that it allows the government to violate a citizen’s 2Nd Amendment rights with little more than a rumor for cause of action.
I suspect the Supreme Court will rule in the favor of those who challenge it.
Unfortunately during the long time frame required to get it to the Supreme Court, many citizens will be unfairly robbed of their arms.
“The red flag law would make it possible for anyone to take our guns and that anyone who refused entry to government cops to prevent the taking of arms would be shot or arrested with the same fate as the 1/6 accused.”
You can feel even better, because I am here to let you know there is no red flag law in the Senate gun bill. I don’t know why people are getting it so wrong.
You mean to tell me that I have let the internet hystericals snooker me again?
Well thanks.
I may be frequently embarrassed to be proved wrong, but never angry and always appreciative.
Thanks.
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.