If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, we could have another Heller on our hands…
Today, we here at Freedom’s Lodge have learned from the NRA that they, together with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA), have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a critical Second Amendment case. As Freedom’s Lodge readers no doubt already know, New York State has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. That’s not because all New Yorkers are anti-gun; far from it. What many people don’t realize is that the state is largely composed of suburban and rural areas where residents tend to be very pro-2A. However, the demographic weight of New York City results in the state voting “blue” more or less regardless of what’s going on in the rest of the country.
At stake in this case is the “Bear Arms” part of the Second Amendment. Although New York State does technically allow certain kinds of pistol ownership, the state is a “may-issue” concealed carry state…and for New York, “may issue” means “maybe we’ll issue it, probably around the time we issue flying monkeys from our butts.”
In 2008, in the D.C. vs. Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says when it says “Keep Arms.” Now, will they rule that it also means what it says when it says “Bear Arms”? For the rest of the story, I’ll turn it over to this article from NRA-ILA:
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has partnered with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) today to ask the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York’s restrictive process for issuing concealed carry licenses.
“As long as New York continues denying law-abiding gun owners their Second Amendment rights, the NRA will continue fighting to protect and expand those rights,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director of NRA-ILA.
The case, NYSRPA v. Corlett, challenges New York’s requirement for applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. While New York routinely employs this arbitrary standard to deny carry permits, the NRA argues that this right should be available to “all ‘the people'” instead of a “subset of the people that can distinguish themselves from their fellow Americans” by showing proper cause.
The NRA is the leader in America’s right-to-carry movement having pioneered the effort on legislative and legal fronts since the 1980s. Today, due to its efforts, more than 40 states have what the NRA describes as “shall-issue” laws where states are required to give residents who apply and satisfy prerequisites their requested permits. The NRA is also the national leader in the “constitutional carry” movement where law-abiding residents in 16 states do not require a permit to carry a firearm. This is the second lawsuit the NRA and NYSRPA have brought to the High Court in as many years. The move is just the latest in NRA’s decades-long fight to protect and expand Americans’ right to carry.
“Eventually, these anti-freedom activists will understand that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, and it doesn’t vanish when we leave our homes. Until then, we will continue these battles wherever they arise,” concluded Ouimet.
This is definitely an exciting case, and (if we are lucky) could potentially open up the fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm to all law-abiding Americans…not just the ones lucky enough to live in a state where one city has enough power to override the will of the rest of its people.