SCOTUS To Hear NY Right-to-Carry Case; Stage Set for Gun Law Upheaval

The Supreme Court Will Not Defend the Second Amendment!, Bill-Chizek-iStock-1020504756
The Supreme Court Could be setting the state for a major upheaval of gun control laws dealing with concealed carry, iStock-1020504756

U.S.A.-( For the first time in more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court will take a Second Amendment case, this one dealing with the right to carry a concealed handgun for personal protection outside the home, possibly setting the stage for a major upheaval of restrictive gun control laws in several states dealing with the right to bear arms.

Watch for the gun prohibition lobby to begin a feverish push for expansion of the high court. Legislation was introduced recently to add four seats, but a new Fox News poll released Monday shows a majority of registered voters are against packing the court. The survey shows 54 percent are against it, while 35 percent support the idea. A Rasmussen survey showed nearly identical results, with 55 percent of likely voters opposed and only 33 percent in support. The Second Amendment Foundation said it would challenge court-packing.

The case now in the spotlight is known as NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. It will be the first Second Amendment case considered by the court since the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago that nullified the Windy City’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. Various news agencies have erroneously reported this is the first gun rights case since the 2008 Heller case was decided, establishing the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms not connected to militia service.

As noted by Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which brought the McDonald case against Chicago, “This 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.”

In addition to NYSRPA, plaintiffs are Robert Nash and Brandon Koch. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Kevin M. Neyland, Jr at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York and Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy and Kasdin M. Mitchell at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington, DC.

Defendants are Keith M. Corlett, superintendent of the New York State Police, and Richard J. McNally, Jr., a justice of the New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial District, and Licensing Officer for Rensselaer County, in their official capacities.

The question, in this case, is simple: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

The Washington Times suggested that plaintiffs “brought the case to the high court arguing the Second Amendment gives them the right to possess a firearm outside the home.” Rights advocates have repeatedly insisted the Amendment doesn’t “give” anything to anybody, but protects a fundamental right from government infringement that predates the Constitution.

As noted by CNN, “The court’s move highlights the impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s presence on the newly solidified conservative court. Justice Clarence Thomas and others had been urging the justices to take up the issue, and just last term, the court declined several cases.”

Bringing balance to the federal courts may wind up being Donald Trump’s lasting legacy. He was able to appoint Barrett along with associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, along with some 200 federal judges to the lower courts.

According to NBC News, the court “agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self-protection. The law “makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen” to get the necessary license, said Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the challengers.”

Last year, the court declined several Second Amendment cases, of which about half were submitted by SAF.

The court’s refusal to hear gun rights cases since 2010 was no small concern of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. He has, as noted by NBC News, “repeatedly criticized his colleagues for turning down similar cases in the past.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan,” Thomas wrote in one dissent, NBC recalled in its report on this new development.

New York offers a target that could have a far-reaching impact if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. In the Empire State, according to NBC News, “anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon must demonstrate ‘a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’”

Constitutional Carry Map March 2021
Constitutional Carry Map March 2021

Many states have adopted “shall issue” statutes that do not require showing a “special need.” Nineteen states have what is generically called “constitutional carry” laws that forego the necessity of obtaining a permit to carry a firearm in public. Other states with such restrictions include New Jersey and Maryland, so much is at stake with this case.

Gottlieb noted SAF currently has lawsuits challenging the laws in New Jersey, Maryland and in New York City.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Those clowns have been notoriously bad at upholding the constitution.


Living here in Oregon, I see open carry on a dayly basis. As far as I know it is still legal. Not that that can’t change at any moment


especially with kate shit stain brown. She is pushing for us to wear masks permanently and she and her demonrats are pushing that if she declares a disaster then concealed carry is no longer valid. When do you need to carry the most? During a disaster. Look at the last set of wild fires that got out of control because she did nothing about it and what did she do? Declared a disaster. We had people running around stealing from others and ANTIFAgs setting fires. How about Katrina? I am old enough that if they decide that it is against… Read more »


Mark my words ,,,, Your going to see schumer push hard to get rid of the filibuster and pack the court this summer because of them taking this case ! I hope I’m wrong or the dems run out of time to do these things . Sinema and Manchin have to stay rock solid to stop it .


I’m not saying Dick the Butcher was right, but he had a point.


Mr. Workman, Maryland is NOT a “shall issue” state. Maryland IS a so-called “MAY ISSUE” state. However, Maryland is in REALITY a “may NOT issue” state!!!! It takes three requirements to be able to obtain a VERY RESTRICTIVE governmental controlled “carry permit”. It boils down to these three requirements: 1.) You MUST have CURRENT COURT PROVABLE DEATH THREATS against YOU!; 2.) You MUST be employed as a SECURITY GUARD to PROTECT A governmental backed money carrier. 3.) You MUST OWN a business – thus you MIGHT have money on your person. Here is the FOURTH UNOFFICIAL REQUIREMENT: 4.) You MUST… Read more »

Charles Nichols

There is no right to carry a concealed handgun in public and it will only take two originalist justices to side with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor to reaffirm what all nine justices in Heller and McDonald agreed on — Prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe on the Second Amendment right. Chief Justice Roberts is certainly one of the two justices needed, if for no other reason than to keep the opinion narrow. Justice Alito said mere possession of a short barrel shotgun is a violent felony for several reasons, including the fact that it can be concealed beneath… Read more »


I don’t care what they say; either way. I am going to do what I think I need to do. Period!




Exactly! Will a criminal care about a law that says they cant carry a concealed weapon when they will be the one who is murdering or robbing you. If the SCOTUS outlawed concealed carry the criminal will have a target rich environment with no fear of reprisal from there victims .

Arizona Don

It has been said and I believe it to be true when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. However, what that statement fails to say is there will suddenly be a hundred million new outlaws. Americans will not and by the way must NOT comply with restrictive gun laws that take guns out of law abiding citizens hand ONLY. Furthermore anyone who knows the history of the 20th century in Europe and Asia knows the reason why. That is exactly what all restrictive gun laws do. They do NOT take guns out of the hands of the person… Read more »

Deplorable Bill

Just some facts. Our RIGHTS, our orders, mandates and freedoms are given to mankind from the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY and they are written in SCRIPTURE, the very same SCRIPTURE this nation is founded upon. Military grade weapons? Yes Sir; see Luke 22:36 re; the caring of a sword the military arm of that day and it’s not just anybody saying it either, it’s the LORD HIMSELF. The RIGHT and mandate to keep and bear arms is written into LAW as our constitution, see the 2A. Thus anyone who would delay or deny an American his GOD given RIGHT and mandate… Read more »


i’m going to have to disagree with you on the scripture part. context is key. Jesus was telling his disciples that the future would be dangerous, same as ours is. but he did not condone the use of the sword. he rebuked his disciples when they cut off the ear of high priests servant.
it is immoral for any person to prevent others from defending themselves. or to tell them what and when they can use, how, where, or against whom.

Deplorable Bill

They actually had two swords Sir. HE told Peter to drop it because HE knew how Peter was going to be murdered; upside down on a cross. All through the Old Testament you will find people taking up arms, military grade arms, in defense of self, others and nation. JESUS orders us to be armed.
You are absolutely correct that it’s immoral for anyone to prevent anyone from defending themself.

Arm up and carry on


As for your ammo shortage comment, I agree to a small degree. I defend your ammo comment due to when I go to a “gun store”, their shelves are nearly completely bare of any “popular” caliber ammo. However, One must take into account the THOUSANDS of NEW GUN OWNERS who are also now buying ammo. Then One has to consider how the GOVERNMENT is ARMING Almost ALL if its “abc” lettered departments. This takes a LOT OF AMMO.


Some thoughts: Nowhere is it written that the Bill of Rights protects from government overreach of the executive and legislative branches . . . unless the judicial branch says it is OK. Our Bill of Rights protects us from all branches of government. It may be true that you can not use your right to free speech to yell FIRE in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire) . . . HOWEVER it would probably be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require by law, the leaving of your vocal cords LOCKED UP AT HOME to enter a theater! . . . the… Read more »


Two other step-children:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Arizona Don

The tenth amendment although likely the most ignored amendment in the Bill of Rights is also the second most misunderstood right behind the second. You however, are absolutely correct in your analogy.

Arizona Don

That has never been agreed upon by all nine justices you are mistaken.

Furthermore here is the second amendment show me where it says citizens do not have the right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 


There is no right to public safety either. SCOTUS has said so — three times at least.

Wise up.


Well, I think what they have said is that there is no right to expect the Govt to guarantee your safety. This is reasonable as the Govt cannot be with you 24/7. And even if they were that is not a 100% guarantee that you will be safe. As history and common sense has shown.

Last edited 1 year ago by RoyD

The Supreme Court stated; “Police, and governments, are NOT responsible to protect INDIVIDUALS. That RESPONSIBILITY resides WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.” (paraphrased).


thanks for your input. in more important revelations….. oh, look! a Squirrel!
the writers of our Constitution made no such distinction where citizens can or may bare arms. None. they understood what true liberty and freedom mean and the risks all free persons face….wherever they are, whatever the threat.

Deplorable Bill

Sounds like you would vote for hitler, stalin, lennon, mao, pol pot, obama etc. You certainly take your playbook from their ideals. If you really want to live in a world like that move to Nigeria. My friend’s cousin was kidnapped this past Saturday along with 23 other students. They don’t have gun rights there. There are no security guards at school. The authorities are all muslim. The people have no say so in their kidnappings, rape and murder. This is what happens when the citizen cannot defend himself with firearms. As long as I live it will not happen… Read more »