Supreme Court of The United States To Hear NYSPRA v. Corlett

Constitution Glock iStock-697763612
Supreme Court of The United States To Hear NYSPRA v. Corlett, iStock-697763612

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court of The United States has agreed to hear a case involving the Second Amendment. SCOTUS has been hesitant in taking up Second Amendment cases ever since the District of Columbia v. Heller. That case reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies to the individual. Up until that point, people like current Vice President Kamala Harris argued that the right to bear arms only applied to a government militia.

SCOTUS took up Heller in 2010 and only has agreed to hear one other case since that historical case. That Case was NYSPRA v. New York City. That case involved the transportation of firearms. The City dropped the regulation make the case moot.

The case that SCOTUS agreed to hear is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. The case centers around the right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense. The NYSRPA and two New York men claim that New York’s denials of most concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violate the Second Amendment.

New York is a “may issue” State. The applicant has to show “proper cause” to be granted a concealed carry permit.

The applicant has to be in the business of transporting large amounts of cash or have a direct threat on their lives before being issued a license to carry a firearm. Even in cases where these requirements are met, the State can decide to reject your application still.

The New York Statute reads: “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The petitioners argue that New York makes it “virtually impossible” for “ordinary law-abiding citizens” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. New York Attorney General Letitia James argues that the State’s policy is a “flexible standard.” She is saying that the law is entirely in compliance with the Second Amendment. She also claims that people that can’t obtain a concealed carry license can always keep a firearm in their home and still can hunt.

“The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of ‘the people’ through some ‘proper cause,’” the petitioners wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court. “To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people.”

If the petitioner is successful, it has the potential to make the entire country “shall issue.” SCOTUS currently leans conservative by a margin of 6-3. This lean doesn’t guarantee a victory for the pro-gun side of the argument. John Roberts tends to be a swing vote, and this will be a lot of the other Justice’s first Second Amendment case on the Supreme Court level.

This case will also fuel the fire of Democrats to kill the filibuster in the Senate and pack the court with anti-gun Justices. It is more important than ever for pro-gun voters to keep pressure on Joe Manchin of West Virginia not to break his promise to keep the filibuster.

There is no timeline for the case to be heard and for the Supreme Court to decide.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Nichols
Charles Nichols
6 days ago

On one side there will be prohibitions not only on concealed carry but on the mere possession of concealable weapons dating back to around the year 1260 in England. On the other side, there is the lone 19th-century case of Bliss v. Commonwealth.

You lose.

https://rumble.com/vg6uhl-justice-scalia-said-concealed-carry-is-not-a-right.html?mref=iz79v&mc=9si52

Last edited 6 days ago by Charles Nichols
CorrectedStatus
CorrectedStatus
7 days ago

None of this bullshit applies to an American. Are you an American? News Flash: Unless you have educated yourself to the fraud that was perpetrated against you at birth, and unless you have taken clear and decisive actions to correct that fraud, PUBLISHING THAT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, you are presumed to be a British subject, NOT an American, you have NO PROTECTIONS OF ANY CONSTITUTION, and you thus have NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,…. PERIOD. Do you get that, you ignorant dumb-ass?? Wake the f*@k up, stupid people! You are loosing EVERYTHING, while you babble about some… Read more »

DIYinSTL
DIYinSTL
7 days ago

You are forgetting McDonald v. Chicago which was 2 years after Heller. And the lawyers effed up in NYSPRA v. New York City by not pointing out that NJ has similar laws and that if the case was mooted then other States may now enact such strict laws as New York once had.

Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman
7 days ago

SCOTUS, until it renders an IMPERITIVE DESCISION on 2A, is an ENEMY OF 2A. Full stop. Anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of 2A.

Convince me otherwise.

Last edited 7 days ago by Henry Bowman
Hazcat
Hazcat
7 days ago

The court does not lean conservative by a 6-3 margin. Stop spreading this lie, it plays right into the communist Democrat narrative for packing the Court.

Roberts is a spineless liberal, Gorsuch is a centrist at best. That leaves SCOTUS at best as a ‘balanced’ court.

Why we call a court ‘balanced’ if it includes justices who do not believe in the Constitution and create law instead of ruling on it is another rant for another day.

swmft
swmft
7 days ago
Reply to  Hazcat

It is not for the people that is for sure, otherwise 1934 gun control act would have been out the window, the people would never let them amend the second so they have lied there way around it and many have been jailed or killed by the jackboots,,the rules started to disarm black ww1 vets and the mob that was supported by the rich who could go to speak easys and drink ;so the rules for the masses were to protect the rich

Last edited 7 days ago by swmft
JSNMGC
JSNMGC
7 days ago
Reply to  swmft

Unfortunately, the majority of “the people” born between 1850 and 1923 wanted massive redistribution of wealth, price controls, other government intervention with the free market, and gun control. The people voted for the politicians who passed the NFA of 1934, signed it into law, and developed/expanded armed federal law enforcement agencies. “The people” elected Roosevelt four times – the majority of the people loved him because he promised forced redistribution of wealth from the few to the many. There is no easier way to get votes.   The desire for socialism and gun control by Americans is not new.   A… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by JSNMGC
Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman
7 days ago
Reply to  swmft

Hard agree, except the pogrom against blacks predates WW1!

TNJEWBOY
TNJEWBOY
6 days ago
Reply to  Henry Bowman

I’m so glad you posted this.

Say if we hand in our guns to the government either piecemeal or all at once what will protect us from the government?

Duane
Duane
7 days ago

The best out come I see because of the limitations of the case.

Is states, will have to go to shall issue.

A win that will kick the can down the road for another decade or so.

DDS
DDS
7 days ago
JayDubya
JayDubya
8 days ago

moot