Guns

SCOTUS Just Agreed To Hear a Major New Second Amendment Case

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next term in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.

|

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear oral arguments in a major new Second Amendment case whose outcome is likely to have significant ramifications for the future of gun control laws around the country.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. At issue is the Empire State's requirement that those seeking to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public must first prove to the satisfaction of state officials that they have a "proper cause" to carry a firearm. What counts as a "proper cause"? State law does not precisely define the term, though some judges have. And according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's 2012 ruling in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, a "generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one's person and property does not constitute 'proper cause.'" In other words, if you hope to legally carry a handgun in New York, basic self-defense is not a good enough reason.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, joined by several individual plaintiffs, maintains that this regulatory regime violates the Second Amendment. "A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the [Supreme] Court's affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," they argue in a legal filing submitted to SCOTUS. "The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of 'the people' through some 'proper cause.' To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people."

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of a major Second Amendment case in over a decade. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court invalidated Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban for violating the constitutional right to armed self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court enforced that right against the states, striking down a similar handgun ban enacted by the Windy City. But because both Heller and McDonald centered on laws banning handgun possession within the home, the Court effectively left unresolved the extent to which the right to keep and bear arms applies in public.

The Supreme Court will soon address that question directly. In its order today, the Court agreed to hear arguments about "whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

At least two members of the current Court clearly believe that the Second Amendment's protections should extend beyond the front door. In 2017, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the Court's refusal to hear a case that asked whether the Constitution protects the right to carry guns in public. "This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion," Thomas wrote. "As we explained in Heller, to 'bear arms' means 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.' The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable," Thomas added, "that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen."

If at least three other justices are willing to join that view in the months ahead, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett could go down in the books alongside Heller and McDonald as another landmark victory for Second Amendment advocates.

NEXT: No, Biden Isn't Coming for Your Burgers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What about the penumbras?

    1. Or the emanations…. 🙂

      1. Constitutional penumbras formed by emanations protect the right to access abortion care, but not the right to own a deadly military-style assault weapon.

        I mean, this isn’t even a difficult concept. You don’t need to attend law school to understand it. I learned it as an undergrad.

        #LivingConstitution

        1. This is about the carrying of handguns. Stay focused on the topic.

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. >>”deadly military-style assault weapon”>
          Are you sure that you don’t also want to include “loud and sceeery to me”? Surely that can’t be Constitutional either.

          And this right here is the bullshit behind “#LivingConstitution”. It means you think you get to wildly expand it to fit your socio-political predilections and contract it to exclude anything that doesn’t.

          You’re right… it isn’t that complicated. You’re full of shit.

        3. You will not sleep ever again. Penumbras and emanations will haunt your peculiar, intellectual soul. Not a good thing

        4. Oh dear. I guess you should have prefaced it with “If you want to post a rebuttal, please recognize that this is sarcasm, dang it. Oh, and get a life!”

        5. This is about hand guns not rifles. Furthermore, It isn’t about your blood lust for human slaughterhouses.

        6. /Triggerwarning for snowflakes, /cautionextremesarcasm
          You know what else the founding fathers didn’t envision when the Constitution was written? The internet. I think the government can surely stop what people are typing. It most certainly isn’t speech as the Founders envisioned. At the very least, there should be registration of all who use the internet and licensing.

          #Living Constitution

        7. So let me parse this out since I didn’t have Con Law in college:

          The Constitution holds that a woman has an inalienable right to the means to protect her body from a 2 ounce fetus, but doesn’t have the right to the means to protect her body from a 200 pound rapist? Penumbras or something?

        8. Open border liberal troll would be a more fitting moniker for an ignorant guttersnipe.

        9. What about driving even deadlier military style* vehicles.
          * military style – standard vehicle with 4 wheels, engine, windshield but has a bunch of add-ons not strictly needed to move from point A to B (or to hunt deer). Like alloy wheels, spoilers, extra cylinders etc.

      2. I can send you my emanations if you want…

        1. Did they come from your penumbra?

    2. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings A are much dkd better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of a major Second Amendment case in over a decade.

    Because they thought they went too far in Heller but didn’t want to say so but now with Biden in office they think it’s the perfect opportunity to reel it back in and declare that the 2nd Amendment is indeed subject to the whims of the government? Call me cynical, but I’m not hopeful about this case.

    1. I think it’s at least a toss up. It will be interesting to see if anyone gets killed by the police for “carrying a gun while black” and/or something happens to Rittenhouse in the time between now and the decision.

    2. “Call me cynical, but I’m not hopeful about this case.”

      Stolen reasoning from elsewhere, but the Petitioners question in their cert writ was, “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

      The question the Court is answering instead is, as Root wrote above, “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

      IOW, did the State screw them by not following its own admin law procedures when they denied their applications. Not, ‘Do you have the right under the Constitution to carry outside your home?’

      I think this isn’t going to be as helpful as Second Amendment supporters might want. OTOH, I’ve read that the Court has punted on cases like this until they could get a good 5-4 bloc, and with Barrett joining Kav, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, now they do.

      1. I suspect if that were the case the Court would have phrased the question in terms of whether their due process rights were violated rather than whether their second amendment rights were violated.

        1. You make a lot of sense here, but if they wanted to look at what the Second Amendment allows, they could have simply looked at Clement’s original Question Posed. They didn’t need to make it about the application being denied.

          Elsewhere in the thread is a link to a Volokh writer’s analysis, and in that article—which is well worth your time—the author mentions remanding the case as a potential remedy, for the lower court(s) to better explain and develop their reasoning. A procedural hook for this Court, particularly if the lower courts had an inadequate record explaining the reasoning for the denial at question, and permit denials generally, might give the Court an opportunity to delay this case until an unfriendly-to-the-Second set of Justices are seated.

          1. Hopefully this will turn out somewhat like Citizens United, where the Court goes in planning on splitting the difference, then the people defending the law come out so batshit crazy, (‘Why, of course we can ban books!’) that the Court decides a smackdown is in order, instead.

      2. Are you so sure about barrett? She has yet to rule with conservatives. I think she is what I would call “a conservative only if it suits the conservative person speaking with her, but a liberal if it is a liberal.” “Any way the wind flows!”

        1. It would have cost her nothing to side with Thomas and Alito on the Texas petition to look at the Presidential Election. And yet she didn’t.

          Does she have a track record as a lower court judge, for being pro-gun rights? I genuinely don’t know. I don’t have faith though.

          1. She has a strong record on gun rights, and don’t forget she clerked for Scalia.

            Are you calling Trump a fuckup?

            NPR was very concerned about her record on gun control:

            “In 2019, in a case before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett laid out her thinking about gun rights. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who wrote a book about Second Amendment jurisprudence called Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, took note.

            “The opinion is very revelatory,” Winkler said. “It really shows that she has a very expansive view of gun rights, likely one even broader than Justice Antonin Scalia.”

            1. And Roberts was also allegedly an arch-conservative christian fundy. Your quote offers no evidence, which leads me to believe it was propaganda to stir up the demo that listens to/reads/watches NPR.

            2. “Are you calling Trump a fuckup?”

              In a lot of ways, yeah. He’s not sitting in the Oval Office anymore, is he? Should Barrett be less than we would hope (and what your cites—thanks—indicate how she would rule), it’s more on the Federalist Society who hand-picked her, than Trump going ahead with her nomination. Like Trump knew anything about federal jurisprudence.

              Your cites are a good sign. Let’s see how she rules. I’m still not a fan of how they changed the QP, and I think it portends a poorer outcome than we want.

        2. I’m not even sure about Kavanaugh, much less Barrett.

      3. NY was being purposely vague with the wording. The strategy here being to claim that the law itself is constitutional and what is “proper cause” is the only thing up for debate. That way they can stand on precedence for the constitutionality of the law and massage and niggle the definitions later, each demanding a new court hearing.

        The proper court decision here is that the State is trying to establish it’s authority to narrow 2A by whatever it deems “proper”, when in fact there is no constitutional authority to narrow it at all, therefore the law itself is unconstitutional. Giving NY anything but a broad decision here will only encourage the state to massage it and try it again. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has a long recent track record of keeping their decisions so narrow that changing a hyphen could avoid a precedent.

      4. Living in a “may” issue state, I think it would be very helpful for me.
        In particular it might mean a framework from which I can carry from my house, across state lines where I sometimes work.

    3. Exactly this.

      They will gut the Second Amendment.

    4. They did go too far in Heller. It’s amazing how people lament activist judges by find nothing at all wrong with Heller.

      No, wait, it’s not. Because people don’t really gaf about activist judges if it goes in their favor.

      1. What is wrong or “activist” about Heller?

        1. He didn’t get an answer to your question in the email.

        2. He disagrees with it. What more is required?

      2. As you are gaffing right now…

      3. It is activist to hold that the Constitution protects rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. It is not activist to hold that the Constitution protects rights explicitly listed in the Constitution. It’s really not that hard to understand.

        1. But some notion of rights have to exist for the others to make sense. A right to privacy for example.

      4. “Activist” doesn’t mean what you think it means. When a court is restricting new government authoritarian impulses and isn’t inventing creative legal doctrine, that kind of rules out “activism”.

      5. Is it activist to read the constitution and say hey maybe there is a right to own and carry guns in there somewhere.

  3. If SCOTUS doesn’t rule in favor of #GunSense, it will become more important than ever for Biden to add at least 4 RBG-style justices. After all, Drumpf and the Republicans have been packing the SC for years; expanding the court to at least 13 would therefore be “un-packing” it.

    #LibertariansForGunSense
    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. #youarearetard

      1. ^This is how you know OBL is doing satire correctly.

        1. it is hard to distinguish satire from the really stupid these days…..

      2. dammit, you beat me to it…

    2. Then Republicans will add more. Be careful of what you ask for. By the way, Republicans didn’t pack the court, they filled vacant seats.

      So will 32 be enough judges? when ever a party has a majority the will add judges. So 150 years with 9 judges was wrong? If RBG had retired during a Democrat president then ACB wouldn’t be in there. So was RBG a power hungry Judge? Was she unable to understand what would happen if she died during a Republican administration? She had been fighting cancer for years, seems like a reasonable person should be able to see the outcome.

      1. thanks for the reminder that filling is not packing…the dimwits we pal around with here are as unfamiliar with the language as the lefties we all dislike. perhaps she was a tad less partisan than the rest of the world seems to be and loved her job. the supe’s are well known for being slightly pragmatic and subject to persuasion. see roberts, who commonly gets it wrong.

    3. Sounds like we’re good to go back to the good ol’ days, when gun control laws helped keep those pesky ex-slaves from owning weapons.

      #RacistBidenPeopleForGunControl

      Everyone else with a modicum of common sense: Rights belong to everyone. Either there’s a 2nd amendment or there isn’t–it’s not a “privilege” that only people willing to kiss the ass of politicians get to exercise.

      Or maybe we want to open up all the amendments this way. Sounds like a great one-party-rule plan; only those with the proper, pro-state leftist views should be allowed to open their mouth.

    4. So…. Kinda like Minneapolis: “Give us the verdict we want or we will burn the country down to take it.”

      You guys really aren’t even trying to hide your colors anymore.

      1. When a jury comes back with 3 guilty verdicts (where they easily could have picked 2 out of 3 or even 1 out of 3 or even 0 out of 3). There was no compromise between what you perceive as correct (presumably “not guilty”), and what the crowd/mob wanted (presumably guilty on all counts).
        Instead what you got was a pissed off jury that wanted to throw the book at the former officer. It happens when an attorney pisses on them and explains that its simply rain. Or in this case, that it was somehow necessary to keep a knee on a suspect after he complied, after he went unconscious and after he died.
        When police punish someone, they have cross the line.

  4. I’ll be shocked if they say otherwise, but like any other right, it’s no good if it only exists in the home.

    The real question is when they’ll address the elephant in the room about freedom of association. So long as they keep telling people you can’t discriminate in public, all civil rights will always be in jeopardy.

    1. Apparently the only real question in your mind is whether your ilk can resurrect Jim Crow under the rationale of ‘freedom of association’.

      1. Jim Crow laws were law, like the Civil rights act is law.

        1. Not really. They were ‘community understandings’. The laws were vague and relatively limited. It was the KKK and juror selection and decisions to not prosecute some things and let a lynch mob form re other other things – that was Jim Crow. Enforced against blacks – and against whites who got out of line with that ‘community understanding’.

          1. A perfect example of Jim Crow ‘legalities’ in a community without that implied ‘racial understanding’ was Kansas. The state where the Civil War actually started. Where the largest cities were allowed to form ‘school districts’ and segregate elementary schools within those districts (but not secondary schools). Brown v Board was specifically chosen by plaintiffs as the ‘name’ case because those schools were in fact otherwise ‘equal’ but ‘separate’. The topeka high school had always been integrated. The middle school had been integrated since 1941. The elementary schools began integrating in August 1953 once they became embarrassed that Topeka was going to be the name case before the SC.

          2. Wow. Just wow.

            Anything to justify a larger, more powerful state – even spouting bald faced lies.

      2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
        That was men between the ages of 16 to 45.

        Note the punctuation in the text. Therefore anyone between those ages and who are male shell no be infringed. See how easy that was.

        1. The Militia is a different subject. The Founders realized that uncontrolled groups of armed men roving around uncontrolled was bad, but didn’t want the Federal government enforcing it’s regulation over armed groups over the Sates, the states should control that.

          The “Militia” is an exception to the “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed”, not the ONLY reason to have Arms.

          The Founders never thought the concept and understanding of the Natural Right (Often referred to as God Given by many.) of Self Defense wouldn’t be known to everyone, or that the state would remove it from people (Like NJ does, and some large cities, like NYC.).

          Also one thing seem to not know. The comma between “Arms” and “Shall not” is NOT in anything but the final version of the Constitution, where it was added as correct punctuation. “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed” makes it a much clearer statement, and that was how it was circulated to the public and state legislatures.

          It wasn’t intended as deceptive, just correct use of English at the time.

          It is quite apparent by the Founders making it so states could control public threats from armed groups, and society in general of unlimited arms of all types and armed groups.

          The individual right to Bear Arms was considered almost sacred, especially for Self Defense and general public order. Not just from criminals, but hostile foreign invaders and Native Americans and brigands and thieves of all types.

          The Supreme Court invalidated a states blanket ban (I think Connecticut?) on stun guns in the last decade, saying they were “Arms” suitable for self defense and the total prohibition is illegal. So it is not just guns.

          Justice Thomas in a ruling against BATF over an administrative rule said (Paraphrase, I might not have it word for word.) “Guns are not a hazard to public safety like a a barrel of toxic waste or a hand grenade just by their existence. A gun has to be gotten, loaded, and taken to the scene and a crime committed with it”.

          Certain weapons, like the hand grenade (Like mentioned above), explosive ordnance, and many machine guns as defined by current law are a hazard enough that strict regulation, or really a total prohibition is warranted.

          Your idea that Militia, and ONLY Militia can have guns is gone out the window with ‘Heller”, and unless Biden succeeds with adding four more justices, not going to change now.

          Now I can see with Chief Justice Roberts in charge, and his loathing making a “Roe Vs. Wade” type decision or even upsetting long precedent that the case ends up essentially changing nothing and just muddles the issue up some more.

          1. Im sorry, but a machine gun fits completely in the category of your Thomas quote. Explosives, properly made, mostly do.
            If you think its ok to restrict the 2nd (or any other) for public safety, the courts and bureaucrats can/will define public safety however they want.
            And since 2A explicitly permits a militia, How the f are we going to have a well regulated militia, if the best arms legally available are semi auto rifles? The progressive SC of the 30s should have never permitted the right to be infringed in any way. The slope is indeed slippery.

            1. “The progressive SC of the 30s should have never permitted the right to be infringed in any way. The slope is indeed slippery.”

              The people who appoint and associate with Supreme Court Justices, were scared shitless of an either Communist or populist insurgency in the wake of the ’29 Crash and ensuing Great Depression. It wasn’t organized crime that was the impetus for restricting full-auto and other weapons—though news of Chicago’s depredations certainly didn’t help. It was things like the Bonus Army in ’32.

              Thoughts that the Founders wanted to restrict the population from having access to arms, are just plain silly. The Founders were in a world with, and relied upon, privately owned warships. Privately owned cannon. The state of the art for military technology.

              It isn’t about following the text of the Constitution though. Not anymore.

      3. Aside from the useless assumption you just made about wanting public discrimination, which I clearly do not want, the point is that the issue remains present. Nobody disagrees on the right of freedom of association, but we constantly condition it without addressing the ideological inconsistencies surrounding it.

        It’s kind of like abortions. I don’t like them as a practice, but I don’t want to forbid women from having them. However, that doesn’t mean I agree with the legal reasoning behind Roe, especially when that legal reasoning causes additional problems today.

        The lack of clarity on freedom of association is the same reason you have to bake the gay cake, among other things.

    1. Thanks.

    2. Definitely a good read.

  5. It would appear that the court has decided to “hear” a related, but rather restricted reframing of the original case.

  6. Unfortunately, that they narrowed the question to such a degree suggests that it will be a similarly narrow ruling: Only that, if a state is going to issue concealed carry permits, self defense has to be accepted as “proper cause”.

    But the ruling won’t protect anyone who isn’t issued such a permit, and won’t require issuing permits, either.

    1. Can’t help but see this against the background of what the Biden administration is proposing to do to save America from gun violence.

      If they rule that a non-specific concern for self-defense is enough to justify carrying, that might complicate Biden’s plans for a national relinquishment [confiscation] program–like the one he promised on his campaign website.

      Maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part, but it would seem to offer a valid defense for someone who was being deprived of their gun just on the basis of some family member’s say so.

  7. This should be an easy overturn. That said –

    that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

    No they understood that the 2nd was intended to protect the ability to take guns from home to the local militia muster/training/arsenal so that THAT could be protected from attack. The purpose of the 2A was to protect the basic functioning of a militia from being undermined by the enumerated authority of congress to ‘organize arm discipline the militia’. It was to protect against a standing army.

    There was never the remotest belief that ‘self-defense’ was even covered by the Constitution. The only individuals covered by Congress were residents west of the 1763 settlement line and that was frontier. Totally reasonable now for that specific rationale to be incorporated against states by the 14th – but ONLY that rationale. the rest of the 2a is about militia.

    1. It was to protect against a standing army.

      There was never the remotest belief that ‘self-defense’ was even covered by the Constitution.

      This is a pretty flatly wrong interpretation. Not only because the 2A doesn’t specify anything about a standing army as the justification and simply forbids infringement without exception, but also because Article I specifically empowers Congress to raise/fund a standing Army and Navy.

      1. Nope just a standing navy

        1. Clause 12:
          To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
          Clause 13:
          To provide and maintain a Navy;

          Depends on what your definition of ‘standing’ is I suppose; whether an army that can stand ready endlessly but only be funded 2 yrs. at a time is significantly different than a standing army or out-of-bound with the above.

          1. 2 years is the term for the House. The notion of a ‘standing Army’ was then a notion that the Army would be under the control of the executive/king/caesar and outside the control of the elected body controlling the funds.

            Do you people even have the basic comprehension of what the founders actually wrote or do you just parrot some lines and look for code words from some agenda-driven group today?

            1. You don’t seem to – you keep insisting the 2nd amendment is to protect militias.

            2. The notion of a ‘standing Army’ was then a notion that the Army would be under the control of the executive/king/caesar and outside the control of the elected body controlling the funds.

              No it wasn’t and your argument still doesn’t make sense in the context. ‘Standing’ has implied ‘professional’ and meant ‘ready in times of both war and peace’ into antiquity. Even if ‘standing’ implied ‘controlled by the Executive’, The Constitution still clearly stipulates the Executive is CIC.

              What’s next? Are you going to insist that we should embrace military dictatorship in order to appease the slave states too?

      2. Not only because the 2A doesn’t specify anything about a standing army as the justification and simply forbids infringement without exception

        That is because the 2A was explicitly an amendment about Art1Sec8 – To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

        It expands on the explicit carve out of state responsibility for appointing officers and operational training. As proven by the version approved by the House – A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

        The slave states would have been appalled at any self-defense notion that includes free blacks. And they were repelled even by the limitation of a militia definition that might include free blacks or by a limitation that might preclude states conscripting pacifist abolitionists to join their slave patrols (the only reason militias were ever mustered in the South).

        1. That is because the 2A was explicitly an amendment about Art1Sec8

          If it’s so explicit, why did you quote Article I Sec. 8 and not the 2A itself?

          The slave states would have been appalled at any self-defense notion that includes free blacks.

          Are you saying you oppose the right to self-defense in support of slavery?

          1. I quoted BOTH. What I didn’t quote was one of the amendments proposed by the Senate but rejected by them to insert the words ‘in the common defense’ after the phrase ‘bear arms’. But a roll call vote was not taken then – and that vote would have had a very different rationale depending on which states supported/opposed it – slave states, states worried about Shay’s rebellion, everyone else.

            Are you saying you oppose the right to self-defense in support of slavery?

            No. I guess I’m saying that you are a repugnant dishonest moron who isn’t worth paying any more attention to. Good bye.

            1. I quoted BOTH.

              I didn’t say you didn’t quote both. You said, “That is because the 2A was explicitly an amendment about Art1Sec8” and asked, if it’s so explicit, where are the words?

              I guess I’m saying that you are a repugnant dishonest moron who isn’t worth paying any more attention to. Good bye.

              Given your stance against self-defense based on the long-passed defense that the slave states might get uppity, I appreciate the compliment.

        2. Still says what it says. I don’t see how you could read that to exclude free blacks. Or as protecting the right any differently from the text that was adopted. The operative phrase is still “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The rest is just context. The motivation may have had specifically to do with the militia, but in order to assure that the militia can function, they protected a much broader right to keep and bear arms. Why they wanted to protect that right in the way they did is really irrelevant.

          1. The rest is just context

            Kind of funny that literalists and textualists seem to believe that there is no ‘context’ that might apply then. If you can’t even try to understand the motivations and understandings of the people then – and therefore the words they chose – then there is no real understanding of what those words mean. Just a modern attempt to impose YOUR understanding/agenda on people who are long dead.

            1. Just a modern attempt to impose YOUR understanding/agenda on people who are long dead.

              Dead or not, I think people, slaves or not, should be able to defend themselves. What understanding/agenda are you imposing?

            2. You misunderstand me pretty badly there. It is important to understand the intent and motivations. I’m not disagreeing with that. Meaning doesn’t exist in a vacuum. But the text still is what it is. They could have added text that specified that the right to keep and bear arms was protected in some limited way only for the sake of the militia. But they didn’t.
              And when I say “context” in the above comment, I refer specifically to the text of the amendment, not the contemporary debate from when it was written. The parts about “Well regulated militia” are providing context, explaining why the right is important enough to be in the constitution. Then the actual meat of what the right is being protected gets its own sentence. And it states very clearly that those rights shall not be infringed. There are no exceptions and no limitation to militia related activity. They could have put that in if that was the intent, but they didn’t.

              1. They could have added text that specified that the right to keep and bear arms was protected in some limited way only for the sake of the militia. But they didn’t. And when I say “context” in the above comment, I refer specifically to the text of the amendment, not the contemporary debate from when it was written.

                They could have done all sorts of things that they didn’t do. The reality of the debate then IS the context for virtually every word and structure in the Constitution then. Studiously trying to ignore the slavery debate outside the obviously-can’t-be-ignored 3/5 – is, in effect, ignoring the slavery debate and putting the Constitution (x the 3/5 words) up on a pedestal.

                That those words were LEFT in the Constitution/amendments can in fact mean the exact opposite from what you believe it means today. Because all legislation or group-legal writing is an outcome of sausage-making. You can’t just ignore the sausage-making.

                If it wasn’t for a single typo in one or two versions of one amendment – from ‘more’ to ‘less’ to some states and ‘more’ in others – then the House of Representatives would today have 6000+ critters (mandated by Constitution) rather than 435 (limited by mere legislation). Context matters hugely.

                1. The reality o fth edebate is valuable context. But in the end they chose to put down the words that we have today. The fact that they discussed other matters that didn’t make it into the text of the amendment is interesting and worth knowing about, but irrelevant to the meaning of the law. If they wanted it to be about slavery or anything else, then they would have put it in there. What they did put in there unambiguously states that the people (i.e. everyone or at least all adult citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms. Which means they can carry them. There is zero ambiguity in the text.

                  1. And now you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Slavery and the slave states is the context around which every jot and tittle of the Constitution was created and turned into acceptable sausage and approved. I’ve said I believe the 2nd is incorporated v the states on the grounds of self-defense (which would be the legal basis behind an SC decision here).

                    But even your comment implicitly admits that no text is ‘unambiguous’ when you say ‘everyone or at least all adult citizens’. So what is it? Everyone or adult citizens? ‘Citizens’ seems to come from Clarence Thomas not the Constitution which says ‘people’. It also supports the notion that this is about militia because only citizens are part of militia – not ‘everyone’. Of course, militia is not a privilege/immunity of citizens but an obligation/responsibility. And do only citizens have the right of self-defense? Hmm. Ok well what about ‘everyone’? Seems ok if the right is narrowly about self-defense. Well what if the right is broader than self-defense – say eg ‘insurrection against tyranny’ – does ‘everyone’ have the right to keep and bear arms against the US government? WTF is that an invitation to invasion?

                    Totally unambiguous here.

                    1. ++ informative influential arguments.

                    2. +++ making people look like hypocritical partisan hypocrites. Usually only Ken and Soldier doing that to lefties. Nice to know not all lefties are completely reliant on appeals to emotion.

          2. Some, including Samuel Adams, wanted the language to be more explicit: “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

            1. Moreover, you can go through context looking for more liberty or you can go through looking for less. You can also go through looking for decent justifications both in the current era and the past. You can even go through and look for inconsistent justifications between the current era and the past. JFree is using an inconsistent justification from a bygone era as reason to apply a more oppressive standard in the current era.

              He might as well be saying, “If the government can enact alcohol prohibition, they can enact gun prohibition too.” or “If the government can enact forced sterilization, they can enact gun prohibition.”

        3. “It expands on the explicit carve out of state responsibility for appointing officers and operational training”

          I do not think that is quite right. The anti-federalists called for an amendment specifically returning certain powers over the militia to the states. They also wanted an individual right to keep and bear arms. But they only got the individual right because that amendment was seen by Madison and the other federalists as not upsetting the carefully crafted constitution.

          1. It would be a very legitimate counter to my argument if there were anti-federalist articles – specific to that issue of arms – that was based on the individual right of self-defense. Do you have a specific cite re that?

            The two anti-federalist articles I know of that include arms and specifically the need to include that in a Bill of Rights are Dewitt 2 and Brutus. Both are about militias. Brutus is poorly organized but Dewitt 2 can be quoted easily:
            that the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia shall be lodged in them[federal officials], and this through fear that they shall not be sufficiently attentive to keeping so respectable a body of men as the yeomanry of this Commonwealth, compleatly armed, organized and disciplined; they shall have also the power of raising, supporting and establishing a standing army in time of peace in your several towns, and I see not why in your several houses:

            IOW – the need for that amendment is to prevent the neglect of a militia in a situation where the feds will prefer a standing army.

          2. As an aside – I do know that state constitutions were explicit about the individual right to keep and bear arms. But that was not a rationale for the same thing in the 2A because the Constitution was not incorporated in the states as a protection for individuals until the 20th century. Their concern was that they were handing over a governmental function to a central government and they wanted to make sure that function could be effectively clawed back if things went kaplooie.

            1. From The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania:

              7) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. (my emphasis)

              11) That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

              Number 11 is clearly an attempt to expand the meager powers reserved to the states by Art1Sec8. Number 7 is clearly an expression of a broad individual right.

              We agree several of the states had right to bear arms provisions which related to individual defense. As you likely are aware James Wilson wrote that the 1790 PA constitutional provision was of that sort.
              Moreover early state courts as well as SCOTUS in US v Miller(1939) compared the scope of the right to bear arms protected in state constitutional provisions to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, so it does not fly to try to read the state provisions and the Second Amendment as being birds of a different feather.

              Lastly a review of the @1786 scribble scrabble / Senex debates on the scope of the MA constitutional protection for the right of the people to keep and bear arms demonstrate the unsoundness of the argument made by justice Stevens in Heller regarding qualifiers.

    2. Saying the 2A is about the militia is like saying government needs permission to give guns to soldiers.

      1. No. It’s like saying that a ‘well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, is the best security for a free state’.

        We (the federal government) attacked and destroyed that notion of a militia by neglecting the required responsibility under Art1Sec8. We (the state governments) destroyed that notion of militia by using the militia for narrowly corrupt purposes rather than universalist ‘body of the people’ purposes (slave patrols, Sand Creek, Matewan/Ludlow, even Shay’s, etc). We (the people) let that happen and did nothing – and 99% of 2A proponents still do nothing.

    3. The ‘militia’ was all able-bodied men, not an official organization. There was no regular muster or training grounds assumed or required.

    4. Fucking retard.

      1. On the contrary, it’s one of the lone salient good comments on here.

        Far above your complete bullshit comment that does nothing at all constructive.

        1. Well if you’re agreeing with it the. We know it’s complete shit.

    5. It might have had more than one purpose.
      In any case, it still says what it says. Intent may be helpful in interpreting things, but it doesn’t replace the actual meaning of the text.

    6. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
      That was men between the ages of 16 to 45.

      Note the punctuation in the text. Therefore anyone between those ages and who are male shell no be infringed. See how easy that was.

      1. I think you are giving away too much there. “The people” is who has that right according to the text, not only the militia.

        People used way too many commas in the 18th century.

        1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the same thing as the right of the people to keep and bear the arms of their choice.

    7. And who are the Militia? All males between the age of 16 to 45. So if any state excludes those people they are in violation of the 2nd amendment.

    8. You have such a deep and thorough misunderstanding.

    9. Horseshit.
      The preamble to the Bill of Rights explains what the amendments were for.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

      The second amendment restricts GOVERNMENT, not THE PEOPLE.

  8. “The Supreme Court will hear arguments next term in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.”

    Someone please explain to me what “next term” means.

    Does that mean October of 2021, or is that “this term”?

    Does “next term” mean October of 2022?

    1. The Supreme Court term starts in October and ends in June or July. So October 2021 is next term

      1. One of the reasons that FDR didn’t follow through on his threat to pack the Court was that the Court started ruling in his favor. The intimidation seemed to have worked on enough of them.

        The threat of that happening in October of 2022, ahead of the midterms, would be less. I’ve been so disappointed by the Court so many times, I don’t trust them to rule in the interests of liberty under normal circumstances.

        Kelo, Gonzales v. Raich, penaltax, etc., etc.

        A mass shooting in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling could be just the thing to make the Democrats pack it.

        1. A mass shooting in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling could be just the thing to make the Democrats pack it.

          Agreed. Similarly, as I noted, one officer shooting someone for “carrying while black” could sway the decision the other way. (Not that I believed in it but…) So much for not politicizing The Court.

  9. The folks at the Washington Post are already drumming up fear among the Woke. And, based on the comments, it’s working. Blood in the Wild West streets where they can’t walk because of the Ammosexuals shooting anyone they want to while the conservative justices and the NRA look on a cackle.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-national-rifle-association/2021/04/26/83e865c8-a690-11eb-8c1a-56f0cb4ff3b5_story.html

    1. Do you not know that the NRA is only one of the pro-gun organizations out there?. I belong to GOA. Gun Owners of America. The NRA has caved to the woke people too many times.

      1. Without the NRA, there would be no GOA, in several senses of the word. Admittedly, they’re gettting into FIFA/IOC territory of irrelevant corruption/opulence, but if the IOC’s ADA had stood up for chemical modification the way the NRA had stood up for gun rights, even if they caved several times before the term ‘woke’ was a thing, the world would be a better place.

      2. Don’t discount the help that the NRA provides.

        They are the upraised target in a game of civil rights Whack-A-Mole, and return again and again to take the brunt of the anti-gunners wrath, while GOA, SAF, etc get the work done.

  10. But if the don’t rule the “correct” way shumer an waters will sic a mob on them

    1. Oh don’t worry even if NY state loses they will just keep on doing it. DC dragged their feet after Heller.

    2. They will unleash the “whuuuurl-wind”.

      I’ve thought Schumer a moron since his days in the House, when he waved a box of Wheaties breakfast cereal and asked “Why does a box of Wheaties cost more than a bushel of wheat?”

      Apparently in his mind, manufacturing, packaging, transportation and marketing have no cost associated with them.

  11. “If at least three other justices are willing to join that view”

    Alito: good
    Barrett: good
    Kavanaugh: ??
    Roberts: whatever will prevent packing

    1. Kavanaugh is pretty clearly an originalist when it comes to gun rights. A five-member conservative majority seems pretty baked into the cake already. My guess is that Roberts joins to make it 6-3 so that he can assign the majority opinion to himself.

      1. But Kavanaugh is also a federalist under the originalist blanket, so I can easily see him punting on the question in the name of “well, that’s up to the states to decide”.

  12. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    Learn more about it here..

    ……………………… http://www.Cash44.club

  13. “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

    ” . . . shall not be infringed.”

    This shouldn’t take long.

    1. Unless the legal reasoning is complex and requires the application of more thought process than you can muster up.

  14. I ran into this issue over 25 years ago when I lived in NY and wanted to get a concealed carry permit. I was advised by gun shop attendants to fill out the application stating “hunting and target shooting” as reasons for desiring a permit. A judge sent me back a nice permit that stated that the permit was good for hunting and target shooting only.

    I mailed it back to the judge with a courteous letter apologizing for my misunderstanding, and saying that I wanted to be able to legally carry if I ever needed to for self defense. The judge promptly sent me a new permit, adding self defense to hunting and target shooting. No problem, but I shouldn’t have had to do that in the first place.

  15. …. and what did roger taney have to say in the infamous Dred Scott decision?

    “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.'”

    got to love the last part of the last sentence of that parade of horribles…

    1. The 14th amendment was basically a parade permit for Taney’s parade of horribles.

  16. $5 says if “may issue” is ruled unconstitutional, these states that do not want their subjects armed simply add hurdles to the permitting process.

    “Oh hey we’d gladly permit anyone, not our fault they can’t complete the 10,000 hour training requirement”

    1. It will be more the New Jersey dodge:

      “Just fill out the application” — and no applications are available.

  17. Just a little addition to the context issue. Anyone who thinks any of the Founding Fathers would dare suggest any limitations on citizens owning firearms has an IQ lower than room temperature.

    1. ” Anyone who thinks any of the Founding Fathers would dare suggest any limitations on citizens owning firearms has an IQ lower than room temperature.”

      Things have changed since 1789, so looking to 1789 for the answer to all your questions is the true folly.
      When the Constitution was written, the notion of the modern, professional police force had not yet been invented and the Framers wanted to keep Congress from keeping a standing army. THATS why they guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. Now that we have a couple of million people in our permanent military, keeping all those armed militia ready to defend our shores against invading armies isn’t so important.

      1. “Things have changed since 1789, so looking to 1789 for the answer to all your questions is the true folly.”

        Great, then amend the document if you can get enough people to agree that the Second Amendment no longer should apply. Until then, we go by what it says.

        That people haven’t been insisting on that point of view with respect to the Constitution, and letting a bunch of ninnies in black robes since at least the 1930’s tell us that up is down, is one of the big reasons why this country is in the mess it’s in.

  18. This is an interesting concept that they are going to rule on whether self-defense is sufficient justification to get a concealed carry permit.
    In Hawaii, the ninth circuit just ruled that citizens can either open carry nor concealed carry.
    That is the case where the Supremes will have to rule on weather Americans can carry guns outside the home

    1. Neither open or concealed carry

  19. It’s all just amendment gas lighting at this point. The Constitution is irrelevant as a historical document, interpreted in its original context. The M.O. of STOTUS, is interpretation based on what the justices perceive as popular opinion.

    Abortion laws? The Constitution evidently speaks to that. Same sec marriage? That too. Want the right to carry a hand gun into Walmart and store a thousand machine guns in your basement? The Constitution seemingly speaks to every thing Americans could want to legalize or condem. Amazing really, must of been written by God. Oh wait, mentions of a deity are unconstitutional and Constitutionally projected at the same time. We are screwed.

  20. When you read the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights it is very clear that the Framers do not want the Government to have more or better guns than the ‘people’ or the ‘militia.’ It does pose a problem when we have lunatics killing people with guns, but without a nationwide Referendum the Constitution could not be more clear.

    1. Don’t know what 2nd amendment you are reading. Where is there a comparison of fire power of citizens vs government? You can’t just make up shit.

  21. You make this information interesting and engaging. You give readers a lot to think about and I appreciate that kind of writing. Visit Us for. Massage Chair Under 2000

  22. “a ‘generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one’s person and property does not constitute “proper cause.”‘ In other words, if you hope to legally carry a handgun in New York, basic self-defense is not a good enough reason.”

    In other, other words, “I wanna” isn’t a good enough reason.

    1. And gun restrictions based on a “generalized” fear of those loud, explodey things is equally ridiculous.

  23. SCOTUS watching is all about counting votes.

    There must be at least four justices who are willing to overturn the appeals court ruling. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have accepted the case.

    I count five justices who I expect to vote in favor of a constitutional right to carry — Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Not an unlimited right, but one that is more similar to “shall issue” than “may issue”,

  24. This is not a “Second Amendment case,” it is a concealed carry case.

    One thing all nine justices agreed on in Heller and McDonald is that concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right. For NYSRPA to win, there will need to be nine justices willing to overturn Heller and McDonald.

    For NYC to win, Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor only need to persuade two justices to join with them. Chief Justice Roberts is an obvious choice, as is Justice Alito. That makes five justices.

    1. What makes you think that Alito wouldn’t support a right to carry?

      1. RoninX – Did you not read my post? Concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right. For the NYSRPA to win, they will have to convince Justice Alito and four other justices that he was wrong to reaffirm Heller’s holding that prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe on the Second Amendment right and that he was wrong to join the Heller decision in the first place.

        If Justice Alito or any of the justices in the majority thought that Scalia’s decision was wrong in any way then they could have said so. They didn’t.

        1. So is open carry then in the Second Amendment right?

  25. Sleep kill you ,you will not sleep ever again. Penumbras and emanations will haunt your
    https://wapexclusive.com
    peculiar, intellectual soul. Not a good thing

  26. SCOTUS has had many chances to set the record straight, but they passed. Now they are under pressure from democrat threats of stuffing the court. I doubt they can make a legit constitutional call anymore. Not just on the 2nd.

  27. Since I started vvith my 0nline business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It s0unds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    Learn more ab0ut lt here..

    ……………………… http://www.Cash44.club

  28. One hopes that the presumably conservative majority currently sitting on the court rules conservatively, that is in favor of individual rights. Who knows how this cookie will actually crumble.

Please to post comments