U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In December, The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) partnered with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York’s restrictive process for issuing concealed carry licenses.
Today, the NRA-ILA applauds the 23 Attorneys General who filed an amicus brief in support of that petition. That effort was led by Attorneys General Eric S. Schmitt of Missouri and Mark Brnovich of Arizona. Also signing on to the brief were Attorneys General Steve Marshall of Alabama, Ed Sniffen of Alaska, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Christopher M. Carr of Georgia, Ashley Moody of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Theodore E. Rokita of Indiana, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Austin Knudsen of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson of Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Dave Yost of Ohio, Mike Hunter of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Jason R. Ravnsborg of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas, Sean D. Reyes of Utah, and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia.
Attorneys General have a “special responsibility to safeguard their citizens’ fundamental rights, including their right to bear arms in self-defense outside the home,” the brief argues. It also argues that “liberty ensures security. The Founding generation knew this all too well, and they enshrined the right to bear arms in their constitutions to keep it safe, not just from kings, but from legislatures as well.”
The NRA-ILA greatly appreciates the efforts that these Attorneys General put into this brief and their support for the right to keep and bear arms.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on this and all of NRA-ILA’s efforts to defend your constitutional rights.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
I carried here in Oklahoma for twenty years before the State decided it would be an alright thing for certain people to do. Never lost any sleep over it either.
I’m going out on a limb and take a wild guess – you never shot anyone for disrespecting your shoes, did you?
I couldn’t care less about the NFL (the pLaYERs are PRICE gOUGers!!!!!!). I will be snowshoeing during the game.
Making roast red pepper soup, salmon tacos and serving gran cru red Burgundy.
Just before and after sunset is a good time to go – usually see some critter out and about (mule deer, elk, moose).
What about us here in Communist-controlled NJ?
@c: Ditto for Maryland — “the free state”.
The Supreme Court has already denied the concealed carry cert petitions from Maryland.
Who produced the Certs? What law firm? Organization? What support did they have in doing so? Do these Certs need to be reconstructed to give them a stronger fundamental basis of law?
Read above statement (Once approved.)
The Supreme Court has already denied the concealed carry cert petitions from New Jersey.
The refusal by the US Supreme Court to hear concealed carry cases brought by plaintiffs in Maryland and New Jersey, were before the current makeup of the court. Hopefully, with the three appointed justices by President Trump, there will be some movement toward restablishing constitutional law in those states with regards to gun rights.
See my reply to Charles Nichols (above)
Communists love government-imposed price controls.
STAND YOUR GROUND! Create a coalition of like minded people, go to your City Council and County Commissioners meetings and if you have people on either that are in violation of their Oaths of Office, step up to the podium when it is your time to speak and SPEAK! Point your finger at them and put them on public notice, “YOU, are in direct violation of your Oath of Office, (Then state WHY) and alert them, “If you do NOT get in-line with the law, WE ARE GOING TO YANK YOUR BUTT OUT OF OFFICE!” Then calmly go sit back… Read more »
“[I]n State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2809 “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right… Read more »
Charles,
That’s where we part ways. You are willing to accept a SCOTUS ruling that infringes on the 2A, I am not. I hold that the BoR is inviolate. The SCOTUS has the authority to rule on whether some other law complies with it, but has no authority to modify it. Those unalienable rights come from our Creator, they aren’t conferred upon us by the government. I don’t hold the government as being superior to our Creator and therefore it has no power or authority to overrule those natural rights.
This is a concealed carry case which, like it or not, is not a #2A right. The brief mentions #OpenCarry once but mentions concealed carry 33 times. This cert petition is D.O.A.
I don’t see how you bear arms would matter, the right is to bear arms. if I want to tuck in in my waist band that’s my choice not the nanny states.
It matters because concealed carry fails to give notice to people around the concealed carrier that he is armed so that they may govern themselves accordingly and takes steps toward self-preservation. Also, only cowards and criminals carry concealed weapons.
Keep digging.
That may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
It’s not really that uncommon. People like him voted for FDR and LBJ. Paternalistic authoritarians.
Daddy knows best – is that right Charles Nichols?
Unfortunately, the gun community is full of butters and Fudds who have no understanding of ‘bear’ or shall not be infringed.
Butters, Fudds, people who want government to solve their petty problems, people who have a need to tell other people how to live, people who want gun control exemptions for government employees/ex-government employees, people who will follow bad orders, etc.
Charles Nichols, That may be the best description for situational ethics that I’ve heard yet. It is also absolutely amoral. Your argument boils down to, “People only need to behave properly when there are consequences for them not doing so.” Furthermore your assumption about cowards and criminals doesn’t hold water. The best argument for concealed carry is that it DOESN’T tell bad people that you are armed and make you their first target when they decide to commit a crime. I’m not sure where you got your education about guns or laws from, but you need to broaden your exposure,… Read more »
“You have to be a kid,”
I’m guessing quite the opposite.
Age does not confer IQ, education, experience, or wisdom. It is just the passage of time.
Joe, Chuck, Nancy, Diane, and many others are elderly.
I did.
No big head here.
I said I don’t think a Constitutionalist will be one of our options in the 2024 Republican primary.
You think Charles Nichols and wil are the same person?
Just
Say
No
More
Gun
Control
Why, I will take that compliment! Thank you! My appreciation goes along with the two of you (JSNMGC) as well.
May as well give me your mailing address so I can ship you a case of Tampons ™ because you are sure going to need them…. Either that or STAND YOUR GROUND WITH SOME BACKBONE!
Yes… A part of the Noise Boys! I have been known to do things that you should NEVER try at home?
Such persons as C.N. want to know who might be armed, so they can know to be polite to them. Others… not be polite to. Their default position is mean, but they will be nice to someone they consider to be dangerous. They wish to know because their desire is to run roughshod over everyone else. They want to know who they can easily and safely, bully (speaking of cowards… 🙂 ).
Such ones never clue to the idea that one should just respect everybody…. until they prove by action to be unworthy of respect.
Or, “AntiPanties” works, depending if he has bun and biscuits? By the way… What ever happened to that fundraiser to send razor blades to those geniuses in Oregon and San Francisco that were going to slice their cumquats because they were protesting being WHITE?