FPC and FPF Urge US Supreme Court to Restore the Right to Carry Arms

Injunction Sought in Federal Lawsuit Over Riverside, California Sheriff Stan Sniff’s “Discriminatory and Unconstitutional” Handgun License Policies
FPC and FPF Urge US Supreme Court to Restore the Right to Carry Arms

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of NYSRPA v. Corlett, a case involving the right to bear arms in public. The brief is available at FPCLegal.org.

New York State forbids ordinary law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm outside the home without a license. To acquire a licence, an applicant must demonstrate a “proper cause.” This requires more than just a desire to exercise the right protected by the Second Amendment. It requires more than a desire to protect one’s self or family, more than good moral character and the want to carry a weapon, and more than living or working in a high-crime area. Instead, “proper cause” requires an applicant to demonstrate “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” So by its very definition, ordinary citizens are prohibited from exercising the right.

After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York’s licensing scheme, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. FPC and FPF’s amicus brief supported the petition, which is the Court’s first opportunity to hear a carry case since Justice Barrett’s confirmation.

The brief was authored by FPC’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. It is FPC’s second Supreme Court brief filed in the last week.

“By now, nearly every federal circuit court has addressed the right to bear arms in public,” said FPC’s Joseph Greenlee. “They have taken a variety of approaches in deciding the cases, and they have reached an even greater variety of outcomes. Currently, whether the right to bear arms exists, and what it protects, differs from state-to-state and sometimes even county-to-county. Constitutional rights should protect everyone equally, and we hope that the Court will use this opportunity to reinforce that.”


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Firearms Policy Coalition

About Firearms Policy Foundation

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPF’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition—especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Firearms Policy Foundation logo

Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Nichols
Charles Nichols
1 month ago

Concealed carry is not a #2A right. That cert petition is D.O.A. like every concealed carry cert petition before it and like every concealed carry cert petition to follow.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
28 days ago

@CN; The issue here is: The RIGHT to carry — in order to DEFEND One’s self, family or friends! Whether the carrying is done openly or concealed is irrelevant.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
1 month ago

First things first. RIGHTS come to mankind from the LORD. Our RIGHT to keep and bear arms comes from SCRIPTURE and it’s further written into law as our constitution. A RIGHT is NOT something like a driver’s license, a privilege, that can be taken away for infractions. No Sir, a RIGHT is unalienable. See our declaration of indepence. Our government has no right to deny or delay any free American citizen of their RIGHTS. The RIGHT to life, the RIGHT to liberty, the RIGHT to pursue happyness, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, the RIGHT to assemble PEACEABLY, the… Read more »

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
1 month ago

Since the supreme court didn’t intervene when some states changed the way voters could access the way to vote and extended voting days without legislation agreed too by their state elected legislators as the law requires in those states, I don’t think anything that comes out of the supreme court means a darn thing anymore.
We already know that criminals don’t pay any attention to the laws thats why there are called criminals when caught.
Laws only keep honest people honest and infringes on some god given rights in the process.

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
1 month ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

UD,

Apples and oranges, I’m afraid.
SCOTUS can, and should determine the unconstitutionality of the NY anti-gun laws.

The STATES control voting laws, it isn’t in the SCOTUS’ purview. The Federal government can only step into STATE controlled things when the state asks them to. States DO as the Fed to step in routinely, you just don’t hear about it.

What you are asking them to do in voting is to give the Fed MORE control, and violate the 10th Amendment. Think about that.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave in Fairfax
Brad
Brad
1 month ago

I agree with Dave in Faifax in we don’t need to involve the federal government in anymore than they are already are . I have to add clarity to his above statement . Voting laws are up to the state legislature. What happens in Pa and other places, was that their courts made them change the law . The courts didn’t have the power to do that . SCOTUS should’ve stepped in an restrained the lower courts and sent it back to the legislature who’s constitutional responsibly it is.Not saying they would do the “ right thing “ IMO The… Read more »

Mike
Mike
1 month ago
Reply to  Brad

The courts didn’t have the power to do that . SCOTUS should’ve stepped in an restrained the lower courts and sent it back to the legislature

Funny how NOBODY cared until AFTER Trump lost.
Trumpies thought it was gonna be a slam-dunk win and when it wasn’t,
FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Laddyboy
Laddyboy
28 days ago
Reply to  Mike

: INCORRECT! The FRAUD WAS NOTED by MILLIONS of Americans. The “judges” on the other hand TURNED THEIR BACKS to the FACTS and their OATH OF OFFICE and allowed the FRAUDULENT VOTES to be counted. Those of Us that Love to live with the FREEDOMS and RIGHTS the Constitution and ACKNOWLEDGED and STATES WE HAD BEFORE the Constitution was written are giving the “courts” time to CORRECT their TREASONOUS BEHAVIOR.

dave399
dave399
1 month ago

I agree, but if we the people don’t wake up and get laws like New York’s declared unconstitutional, Biden’s string pullers are going to have all of us living under New York and California type laws.

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
1 month ago
Reply to  dave399

dave399,

They’re going to try. Until SCOTUS is willing to rule against them, or the people of NY are able to out-vote NYC, Albany and Rochester the chances don’t look good for them. What the other states’ do is up to them, as is what the US citizens will tolerate nationally. You get the government that you deserve, and we have a lot of undeserving citizens.

Brad
Brad
1 month ago
Reply to  dave399

Totally agree . As I am a ex New Yorker and now live in the Carolinas . I see a lot of New York plates here as people flee the destruction they caused . Now I worry they will bring their voting habits with them and wreck here . I think a lot of people thought voting for Trump was enough to protect us. . He was one man . Too often people don’t care local and state elections. Every election needs to be taken seriously. I’m guessing that we along with others on here see that we’re losing our… Read more »

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
1 month ago

Dave, Oh great that sounds marvelous, how about I go ahead and open a restaurant and I forbid anybody who is black and wearing chartreuse clothing from eating in my establishment? I know you’ll say you can’t do that: 14th amendment! But what if I and enough of the voters in my state pass a law saying that private businesses can forbid anyone who is black and wears chartreuse clothing from entering into my business? What happens then to your vaunted 10th amendment states’ rights? States’ rights were abrogated by the Commerce clause by a cowardly scotus which dictated that… Read more »

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
1 month ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

Neander, Actually I don’t disagree with all your views, sorry. I think the Commerce clause was a bad idea and is stretched to the breaking point. I’m certain that the Dems won’t be able to restrain themselves and will push until something gives. I agree that SCOTUS has a very few, maybe one, Justice who can be counted on and that the government has granted itself powers that it has no authority to wield. Voting is specifically given to the states to administer, arguing that the results affect other states’ citizens and therefore should be controlled by the Fed is… Read more »

TStheDeplorable
TStheDeplorable
1 month ago

Heller and the related cases were chosen carefully by the court to deal with “the right to keep … arms” of the 2nd Amendment. They really do appear to have intended to next deal with “the right to … bear arms.” The anti-gunners would have us believe the the words “to keep and bear arms” to mean at most “to own arms.” But the fact that the court chose to take cases dealing only with “keep” tells me the intend to separately deal with cases dealing only with “bear.” Given the current composition of the court, I expect that they… Read more »

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
1 month ago

Please explain to me Deplorable in specific terms, which other rights in the Bill of Rights requires us to carry insurance in order for us to exercise those rights? Before you can go into the Public Square step up on your soapbox and start speaking eloquently concerning this, that, or some other thing, do you have to have some form of insurance before you step up on that box and before you speak? Should such not be the case, and you are not required to carry insurance, then why is it that the second amendment is so special? The sad… Read more »

Wolf44
Wolf44
1 month ago

What the hell does any of their stupidity have to do with gun rights or defense? Why does Ammoland allow such ignorance to be published here?

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
1 month ago

The UNITED STATES corporations court of kangaroos just committed high treason by swearing in an illegitimate clown so as usual for countless decades nobody is holding their breath thinking the court jesters will go by the US Constitution because they are the laugh stock of the entire world.

TRUMP 2021, still President bitches!

Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago

don’t forget they ALSO swore in another “elected” officer who is patently and eminently NOT qualified to hold HER current office, and will be equally unqalified to hold the one for which she was really “elected”. Camelnose-under-the-tent was born to two paretns, NEITHER of whiom were US Citizens t the time of her birth. READ Artocle Two, bey plain this is NOT ALLOWED. Where were SCOTUS on that little oversight”?

Mike
Mike
1 month ago
Reply to  Tionico

You are an idiot.
If you are born here you are an American.
Period.
You can not like it, but it is what it is.