After years of Chief Justice John Roberts seeing to it that major gun cases were side stepped by the Supreme Court, today marks a major change on that front. Four Justices have agreed to hear the case out of New York dealing with the carrying of firearms outside the home. This may very well be a landmark case that will shape the future of rights surrounding gun ownership in America. This from redstate.com.
Here’s Cam Edwards from our sister site, Bearing Arms, announcing the news.
Breaking: SCOTUS grants cert in NY carry case.
This is huge.
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) April 26, 2021
The Washington Examiner provides more details.
The Supreme Court on Monday accepted for argument a New York Second Amendment case, the first major gun rights suit before the court in a decade.
The court accepted the case in an unsigned order, noting that the justices will consider only “whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”
The case arose out of a dispute over New York licensing. As it stands, New York law requires applicants for a license to demonstrate “proper cause” and a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” But several New York residents, as well as the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, pushed back, arguing that such rules were unconstitutional.
Blue states like New York have made getting a permit to carry a firearm very difficult. The restrictions they have placed on getting a permit mirror the same kinds of games played with voting rights in centuries past.
For example, they will require a declaration of a “special need” to carry for protection, as if protecting one’s self from the crime-ridden dump that these Democrat areas are isn’t reason enough. Of course, that “special need” exception is rarely granted by the powers that be. Further, these states are notorious for sitting on permit requests for years at a time to stall the process out.
Until the recent past, John Roberts, erroneously representing the swing vote, has refused to vote to allow the court to take up any major gun cases going back over a decade, allowing states to become very abusive with the Second Amendment.
This has changed with Amy Coney Barrett being added to the court. The conservative wing, to which Roberts belonged in name only simply because he was appointed by a “Republican” president, now has the power to bring up pretty much any case they want. Four votes are required for the Court to hear a case.
As to how this case will go, can anyone foretell with any confidence, given that the new conservative justices haven’t yet proven they’ve found their sea legs? Specifically, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett have already placed controversy avoidance ahead of rule of law. And it is hindsight that reveals this was at least in part the democrat tactic during the “uncomfortable” confirmation hearings.
In some ways, there’s little risk here. If SCOTUS comes back with a decision that there is no inherent right to carry in the Constitution, states will just continue to make laws as they see fit. Free states will continue to have some form of constitutional carry while blue states will keep playing games and violating the rights of gun owners.
On the other hand, there is a ton to be gained here. If SCOTUS rules that there is an inherent, constitutional right to carry a firearm, it will open the floodgates for some form of constitutional carry in Democrat states that currently prohibit it. We could be looking at what amounts to de facto national carry reciprocity in the near future.
What say you Def-Con News readers? Do you think it’ll be better to see this issue tested now that the conservative wing of our SCOTUS has an apparent nod of numerical superiority? President Trump you are missed, sir.
