Supreme Court Earthquake

For the first time in more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will take a Second Amendment case for review — and it has caused nothing short of a social-political earthquake.

The case is known as NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, and its impact was perhaps best explained in a comment from far-left New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a committed anti-gunner, who told Bloomberg News “my heart sank” when the court announced its decision.

“We’ve come so far to try to keep guns out of the hands of New Yorkers, particularly young people,” de Blasio admitted, “and the Supreme Court, it looks like they’re working overtime to put guns right back in those hands. That really worries me.”

Likewise, Eric Tirschwell, an attorney for the billionaire-backed Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, reportedly told Bloomberg News via email, “A ruling that opened the door to weakening our gun laws could make it even harder for cities and states to grapple with this public health crisis.”

For years, anti-gunners have tried to portray so-called “gun violence” as a public health crisis, when it is both a crime problem and a suicide issue.

What worries gun prohibitionists cheers most gun rights activists. With a constitutional majority on the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment community is cautiously optimistic an important step in restoring the right to keep and bear arms to its proper place in the Bill of Rights.

Sources:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110211298_2020-12-17%20NRA-Corlett%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-27/states-fear-supreme-court-gun-case-will-undermine-local-control

What’s This About?

The issue is simple, and one that readers will appreciate. This is a challenge to the carry permit laws in New York State which require applicants to show a “special need” to carry a defensive sidearm “beyond a general desire for self-protection,” as explained by NBC News.

NYSR&PA is joined by two private citizens, Brendan Koch and Robert Nash. Both have had permit applications denied.

New York, like some other jurisdictions including New Jersey, Maryland and California, have mandated average citizens must demonstrate a substantial need or they will be denied a carry permit.

As noted by attorney Paul Clement, representing the plaintiffs, noted in his petition to the Supreme Court, the law “makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license.”

An affirmative ruling by the high court, which would likely come in June 2022 because the court has a tradition of handing down the most important rulings on the final day of its session, would be shattering to the gun control movement. Not only would it force New York authorities to change their regulatory scheme, but laws in New Jersey, Maryland and the other states would be essentially nullified.

It would mean New Jersey authorities would no longer be allowed to let permit applications gather dust forever on some bureaucrat’s desk. It would mean California authorities could no longer automatically “just say no” to honest permit applicants.

Clement’s 29-page petition for a writ of certiorari is an interesting read. It mentions two cases brought by the Second Amendment Foundation — Wrenn v. District of Columbia and Moore v. Madigan — which brought about concealed carry in Washington, D.C. and the State of Illinois, respectively.

He notes the First, Second, Third and Fourth Circuit courts have upheld restrictions on the right to carry outside the home. To that, Clement states, “Common sense dictates that the need for armed self-defense (i.e., cases of confrontation) is not confined to the interior of a home.”

Source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-consider-right-carry-gun-outside-home-n1265357

Rights Extend Outside the Door

A constitutionally enumerated right that exists only within the confines of one’s home is not a right at all, Second Amendment advocates contend. The very notion of the right to keep and bear arms stopping at the door is bereft of logic, they maintain.

Insider chatted with Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. He indicated SAF would be filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.

In a news release, Gottlieb said the case “was made possible by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. SAF’s victory in that case built the foundation for this and other lawsuits against states and localities to be heard by the Supreme Court to protect and expand gun rights, and we are proud of that.”

He’s got a point. The McDonald ruling in June 2010 was the last time the Supreme Court handed down a Second Amendment decision. But it was far-reaching, even though anti-gun judges and gun prohibitionists have labored to downplay its importance or ignore it altogether.

With NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, that could change in 14 months.

Source:
https://www.saf.org/saf-hails-high-court-acceptance-of-new-york-second-amendment-case/

The Surveys Say…

In our last installment, Insider discussed revelations in a recent McLaughlin & Associates survey on gun issues, and this week, there is more.

One day after the Supreme Court announced its acceptance of the New York challenge, Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing that a majority (65%) of likely voters “believe stricter enforcement of existing gun laws will do more to reduce violence.”

This certainly doesn’t square with what Capitol Hill gun control proponents believe. They want to push a bunch of new, restrictive gun laws.

The following day, a Washington Post-ABC News poll revealed, “fewer Americans support prioritizing new gun control laws” than they did three years ago. The number has declined 7% while more Americans say, “protecting the right to own guns should be a bigger priority” — up by 9% since the same question was asked in 2018.

As reported by Newsmax.com, “More than 80% of Democrats continued to back passing new gun laws, approximately the same percentage as in 2018, but opinions have shifted among Republicans and Independents.

“Among GOP supporters,” the Newsmax story continued, “76% said that protecting the right to own guns should be a higher priority, up from 58% in 2018.”

But here’s a telling revelation: “Among Independents, 48% said protecting the rights of gun owners should be prioritized, with 43% prioritizing gun violence laws. Three years ago, the views of Independents were dramatically different, as 58% backed prioritizing new gun laws and only 33% said protecting the rights of gun owners was more important.”

That’s a sea change in attitudes about guns.

Sources:
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/gun_control_voters_say_enforcing_existing_laws_will_do_more_to_reduce_violence

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/550661-fewer-americans-prioritizing-new-gun-laws-compared-to-peak-after
 
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/907d4f24-e869-430e-9c73-9d99fe87c84d/note/59095b48-ce98-4cf3-b3ae-422daa90939b.#page=1
  
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/public-support-gun-control-mass-shootings/2021/04/28/id/1019323/

Subscribe To American Handgunner