Gun Control’s Racist Roots Exposed in Supreme Court Brief

The Supreme Court Will Not Defend the Second Amendment!, Bill-Chizek-iStock-1020504756
A 35-page amicus brief supporting gun rights could make a difference in the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case challenging New York State’s restrictive permit law. iStock-1020504756

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- As the Nov, 3 date for oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen looms, Reason magazine is highlighting one of the many amicus briefs filed in support of the case, not only because it comes from “a coalition of public defense lawyer organizations,” but because it cuts to the bone of racial and ethnic discrimination at the root of New York’s firearm licensing requirements.

The 35-page brief, which may be read here, comes from the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services, and more than a half-dozen New York county public defender offices. They waste no time getting to the point.

Arguing the state’s licensing requirements are unconstitutional, the brief observes, “They allow New York to deny Second Amendment rights to thousands of people, and to instead police and criminalize them for exercising those rights. Such a policy is the type that ‘the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes . . . off the table’,” quoting the 2008 Heller ruling.

Writing at Reason, Senior Editor Damon Root observes, “It’s possible that such arguments will resonate with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s leading critic of over-policing and related law enforcement abuses. As the public defenders make abundantly clear in their brief, a Supreme Court decision against New York’s gun control scheme would be a victory not only for the Second Amendment but for criminal justice reform too.”

The brief includes accounts of people whose lives have been turned upside down because of heavy-handed and narrow-minded enforcement of the state’s gun laws.

The importance of this case cannot be overstated. In an article at The Trace—a pro-gun control news organ—Jennifer Mascia quotes law professor Adam Winkler, University of California, Los Angeles, who explains, “This is one of the great questions: Does the Second Amendment extend outside the home, and if so, what kind of permitting is allowed for concealed carry?”

Perhaps Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, already answered that question some weeks ago when he announced SAF has filed its own amicus brief, which is joined by the  New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Illinois State Rifle Association, Florida Carry, Inc., Grass Roots North Carolina, Louisiana Shooting Association, Tennessee Firearms Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education, and Virginia Citizens Defense League.

“A right limited to someone’s home is no right at all,” Gottlieb stated, “and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.”

He pointed to the language of the Second Amendment, which clearly states the people not only have a right to “keep” arms, but to “bear” them, and that certainly must extend “beyond the confines of one’s home.”

The NYSR&PA case has brought together an interesting combination of supporters, making it impossible for the gun prohibition lobby or the radical left to pigeonhole this coalition as merely a bunch of right-wing groups.

And The Trace is careful to hedge about the potential outcomes of the case, offering different scenarios.

The story quotes Prof. Eric Ruben at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, who explained that a broad ruling, striking down discretionary “may issue” permitting schemes, “would say that modern-day gun problems are irrelevant when trying to decide whether or not a law is constitutional.”

The Trace believes it is “unlikely” the high court will simply uphold New York’s law, a notion that would make no sense, because if the court had that intention, it would not likely have taken the case at all, but simply declined review and allow the New York law to remain in place.

A rights-affirmative ruling would jeopardize similar gun control laws in seven other states, everyone seems to agree. But as Winkler told The Trace, “Most of the states are not going to simply just say, ‘The Supreme Court struck down a similar law, let’s just give up on our concealed carry policies. So they’re going to force people to file lawsuits. I imagine those states are likely to fight until the bitter end.”

Such is the stubborn nature of the gun control mindset. Anti-gunners never acknowledge their gun control schemes have failed, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Instead, they simply push for more restrictions.

It is not likely the court will hand down a ruling until late next June. Traditionally, the court holds its most controversial decisions until the final days of its session. This one is guaranteed to be controversial.

RELATED:


About Dave Workman

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

Dave Workman

Subscribe
Notify of
37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Nichols
Charles Nichols (@charles-nichols)
1 month ago

The question presented to the Court is a question the justices rewrote and limited to both concealed carry and to whether or not the denial of the two petitioners’ applications for [unrestricted] concealed carry licenses violated the Second Amendment. Six of the 9 justices are already on record saying that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett have not gone on the record saying where they stand on concealed carry. Supreme court rules limit the scope of the opinion to the question presented. Because the New York respondents were too stupid to… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
1 month ago

That is probably the most pessimistic evaluation I’ve seen. Unfortunately it may also be the most prescient.
i will however remain optimistic because court’s acceptance of the case suggests otherwise.
Surely there are rational justices who may disapprove of concealed carry, but recognize that open carry prohibition necessitates concealed carry. Interesting question – if scotus rules one or the other must be available, will any anti states chose open carry over concealed? I can certainly see them desiring to expose us ‘deviants’ in order to shame people out of carrying.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
1 month ago

Good analysis.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago

Roots of NRA’s looting and destruction in Dave Workman’s 1997 betrayal.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Wow. All the copsucking LaPew worshipers are still here.

Knute Knute
Knute Knute (@knute)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

The only thing I found that they wouldn’t stoop so low as to downvote was a cute puppy! They attacked my question about Wild Bill’s horse without mercy. 🙂

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute Knute

LOL. All the copsuckers are still here.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute Knute

Harry supports you two hooves up!

jj
jj (@ampatriot)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

So typical of leftists to resort to name-calling. Of course that’s all you’ve got.

Last edited 1 month ago by jj
loveaduck
loveaduck (@elbee1943)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

You’ve pointed that out before.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  loveaduck

So what? Should the truth be pointed out only once? Stop sucking.

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Maybe so, but a broken record soon gets tossed.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Nice try. You post the same obvious rah rah crap all the time.If you weren’t one of the worshipers burying Workman’s betrayal, you’d ignore it. Stop sucking.

Arizona
Arizona (@arizona)
1 month ago

The right thing to do is obvious, as clearly stated in the second amendment. Any licensing, permits, or prerequisites for exercising the right are infringements, which the amendment prohibits. The court should remind the government that all such laws are repugnant to the Constitution and without authority. The government has no legal power to police the ownership or use of firearms and other weapons unless and until they are used to victimize a citizen.

swmft
swmft (@swmft)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

true but ignored

HLB
HLB (@hlb482gmail-com)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Actually, the government has no legal power to police the ownership or use of firearms and other weapons under any circumstances. They only have the power to prosecute you for victimizing a citizen, not using a weapon to victimize a citizen. The myriad laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment are all meaningless and are only attempts by anti-gunners to keep you from exercising that right. These people do not wake up in the morning thinking, “Gosh, I really want everybody who desires so to exercise their weapons rights, but the 2nd Amendment simply does not allow this or that… Read more »

Charles Nichols
Charles Nichols (@charles-nichols)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

There are nine justices on the Court. Six of them have already said that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.

Wass
Wass (@wass)
1 month ago

No amount of appealing to Justice Sotomayor’s sentiments for fairness in policing or her feelings for racial equality will dissuade her from voting against the plaintiffs. She was selected for the court by Dem president, Barack Obama. She will tow the party line, come hell or high water.

swmft
swmft (@swmft)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wass

that is the way to bet, but hope she slaps them, and buys a gun of her own

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wass

While often remaining true to a philosophy, justices are notorious for NOT toeing party lines. I would not be overly surprised if Sotomayor does the right thing here. Unfortunately Charles Nicholas may also be right – conservative justices may side with narrow ruling restricted to whether two plaintiffs should receive permits.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

What a load.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA (@gomeznsa)
1 month ago

Dave – good column – now ya need to do one showing how ‘gun control’ laws are also heavily influenced as means of economic oppression as well. Old English common law restrictions definitely discriminated against the poor folks (serfs).

Bill
Bill (@navy-cwo)
1 month ago

As noted by Agostino; the form 4473 requires the potential firearm buyer to disclose his/her ethnicity and race! So much for “all men” are created equal”!

ArmsPreservation
ArmsPreservation (@armspreservation)
1 month ago

Of the eight states this could impact, I’m glad it will happen to NY first.

Agostino
Agostino (@agostino)
1 month ago

I might add that the form 4473 is racist on its face.

Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
1 month ago
Reply to  Agostino

worse than racist.
It SHOULD contain no more than the unique identifying information on the one making the purchase. Name address date and city of birth, .

NOTHING about the items being purchased. It is a background check on ME< not what I want to take home with me. Nor should it be a backdoor to some gummit agency building a database of what I have bought.

Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman (@henry_bowman)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tionico

“It SHOULD contain no more than the unique identifying information on the one making the purchase.”

Negative, Ghost Rider. It should be abolished along with the BATF and all gun laws at all levels of government, especially NFA, GCA and FOPA.

Arizona
Arizona (@arizona)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tionico

It didn’t exist when i was born, and should not exist now. As a citizen you have the right to defend yourself, at all times other than while incarcerated.

swmft
swmft (@swmft)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

I bought at F.W. Woolworth an m2 carbine24$+ 2$ tax stamp no background check, they had tables full of ww2 and Korean surplus , no tax for the m1 carbine or Garand, still have my receipt

Wild Bill
Wild Bill (@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  swmft

Now, that, is the exercise of freedom. Buying a firearm at Woolworth!

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill (@deplorable-bill)
1 month ago

The right, the mandate to keep and bear arms comes from SCRIPTURE see Luke 22:36. Our constitution is heavily based on the very same SCRIPTURE. Our right to keep and bear arms is further written into law as the 2A. Not only does the 2A explain the reasoning pro the right to keep and bear arms, is also restricts any government’s (state and federal) recourse re; the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A specifically says ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ thus the government, state and federal, has no legal say in any free American citizen’s right to keep and… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
1 month ago

Wow. Logical conclusion of that brief is that NICS (and all background checks) needs to go.

I don’t anticipate a broad ruling of any sort, but actual application of the law would be sweet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Finnky
Tionico
Tionico (@tionico)
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

NICS as presently operated DOES indeed need to find a solid resting place on the dustbin of history. Never to be resurrected again. A simple system where anyone can access it by phone or internet, enter the name as on the buyer’s Social Security Card (note I did NOT say the account number, no no no never), city and date of birth, current residence and maybe any others in the past year, and as a more narrow identifier, mother’s or father’s first name. Clank clank clank it spits out a proceed or deny code, whith the putative seller can retain… Read more »

swmft
swmft (@swmft)
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

an actual application of law would dump 1934,and 1968 gun control acts

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Wow, so original. Not like you’ve ever repeated that opinion.