Supreme Court Order on Gun Carry Laws is Donald Trump's Legacy
Amy Coney Barrett is likely to support the Second Amendment right to bear arms without showing 'need'
The right to bear arms -- carry a gun -- will finally be decided by the Supreme Court. This is a huge win for supporters of Second Amendment rights. It shows the new majority with three justices appointed by Pres. Donald Trump likely has the votes to overturn the state laws that require showing proof of need to legally carry a gun outside the home.
This post is free, but I hope you’ll consider supporting my work by subscribing to my newsletter for just $6 a month with the button below.
The highest court announced Monday that it was granting cert for a New York case about conceal carry permits. (It takes four or more justices to take an appeal.)
Pres. Trump’s appointments - Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- are all believed to support Second Amendment rights. So with those three and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the high court would have the five votes needed to overturn the appeals courts that have allowed states to make laws restricting people from carrying a gun outside their homes without showing a “good reason.”
Chief Justice John Roberts is totally unpredictable on conservative principles so it will be interesting to see if he sticks to his guns when he voted with the majority from the Heller decision.
Those of us who have watched these gun control cases for years believed the high court kept refusing to hear a gun carry case because the pro-Second Amendment justices knew they didn’t have the votes to win.
So Trump deserves all the credit for making the court pro-Second Amendment again. As I wrote earlier today — before this Supreme Court announcement, which freaks me out that it seems I timed this perfectly:
The biggest accomplishment of Donald Trump’s one term was filling the federal courts with conservative judges and getting what many believe is a majority pro-Second Amendment on the Supreme Court. So while it’s inevitable that Biden will enact more gun control executive actions and possibly get it through Congress, those laws will have to then stand up in courts in which the presiding judge was chosen by Donald Trump.
This is the order from the court on agreeing to hear the New York Second Circuit case:
20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
This specific case will determine whether it is constitutional for two New York residents to be denied carry permits by the state police for not being able to demonstrate a "proper cause.” The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is backing the case in partnership with the NRA. (Corlett is the superintendent of the police.)
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state law on “proper cause” as it has done multiple times in the past. The Supreme Court kept refusing to hear appeals.
But there’s a new sheriff in town now and her name is Amy Coney Barrett.
The case will be the other half of the landmark Heller decision that established the individual right to have a gun -- the interpretation of the right to “keep arms.’ The justice will decide if the right to “bear arms” can be limited by states by showing a need.
The Court was specific on what it is deciding so it will not go into specifics like carrying without a permit (“constitutional carry”) or training requirements.
The country has been divided into circuit courts that say states can and cannot refuse to let people carry guns outside the home unless they can prove a need, like threats against them or carrying money.
This is how I got my first carry permit in DC, when the city was briefly “may issue” and I showed that I had a “special danger” (threats against my life) that I could prove. Watch one of my reports from the series I did in 2015 on getting a carry permit in DC here: FOX 5's Emily Miller gets DC gun carry permit approved
Once DC stopped fighting in court -- to prevent getting to SCOTUS and having another Heller situation -- the city became “shall issue” so now anyone can get a permit to carry in DC if you meet the requirements of training, a class with their certified instructors and pass a background check.
When the Supreme Court rules on this New York circuit case, it will then apply to all other circuits that have allowed states to write gun laws to restrict carry outside the home. The other states that are currently “may issue” on carry permits and will be impacted by this decision are: California, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Pres. Biden’s home state of Delaware.
If the Supremes rule to overturn the New York case, then it will establish that the Second Amendment says that an individual has the right to carry a gun outside the home. This is why it’s the other half of Heller which established the individual right to possess a gun inside the home (“keep arms”).
For Americans who live in the states that have denied their right to bear arms and carry a gun outside the home -- where you’re more likely to be a victim of crime-- the news today from DC may be life changing.
If you value my work and reporting, please sign up for my newsletter with the link below. There is a free option to get some of the posts. To support my my work here, please consider a paid subscription for $6 a month.
Without paying, you can also support my work by sharing this story with friends, neighbors and colleagues and post it on social media by clicking on the link below. Thank you!
I stand behind you in line at the store with a smile on my face… and a gun under my shirt and you are none the wiser. Yet you are safer for having me next to you. I won’t shoot you. My gun can’t pull its own trigger. It is securely holstered with trigger covered. It cannot just “go-off”. However, rest assured that if a criminal/lunatic walks into the store and pulls out a gun, I will draw my pistol and protect myself and family, therefore I’m protecting you and your family. I may freeze, I may piss my pants, I may get shot before I can pull the trigger… But I won’t die a helpless blubbering heap on the floor begging for my life or my child’s life. I won’t be that victim. I choose not to be. As for you, I don’t ask you carry a gun, so do not limit me or my family on what or where we can use to defend ourselves, we are Pro-Choice. If you are not comfortable, then don’t. But I will keep my right to choose to not be helpless victim.
There is evil in the world and if evil has a gun, I will also.
As a Retired Marine I’m pro 2A. I also believe with rights comes responsibility. What types of situations would allow a government body to prove a person is irresponsible and in a “shall issue” situation withhold a permit for the safety of all. Felons have proven they are irresponsible and forfeited the rights granted under 2A. However what about a person with significant mental illness that refuses treatment or is unable to be treated properly due to the severity of their condition?
It is my opinion a person who chooses to exercise their right to posses and or carry needs to be responsible and due things like 1) practice use as well as safe handling of the firearm. 2) keep it secure to prevent accidents including those to young and or irresponsible from gaining access to it.
There are some very fine lines here. I realize the propaganda the anti gun lobby uses to scare people into supporting reactionary unconstitutional laws. (CT after the Newtown school shooting) As we remind people new laws only penalize the law abiding responsible people and work to help remove unlawful possession and distribution of firearms IMO. Your thoughts?