Second Amendment Showdown Looms, Gun Control Debate Ramping Up

Lawsuit Court Guns Law Judgment Injunction
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging New York State’s restrictive carry law on Wednesday, Nov. 3.

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- When the U.S. Supreme Court convenes Wednesday, Nov. 3 to hear oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it won’t be the Second Amendment on trial, but the extremist gun control law in New York state requiring applicants for a permit to carry a gun for personal protection to show some “special need” to exercise a constitutionally enumerated fundamental right.

Writing at Vox, Senior Correspondent Ian Millhiser seems to lament, “For nearly all its history, the Supreme Court kept its distance from gun policy. Now it’s about to decide a case that could radically reduce the government’s power to regulate guns.”

With due respect to Millhiser, that’s what every tenet of the Bill of Rights is supposed to do, limit the government’s power. The fact self-described “progressives” (make that liberals) are concerned about this probably says more about their motives and goals than they care to acknowledge.

Millhiser contends “The Second Amendment states explicitly that it exists to protect “a well regulated Militia…”

No, gun rights activists could argue, it doesn’t really say that at all, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller in June 2008.

Millhiser refers to the 1939 case of United States v. Miller to argue the high court’s unanimous ruling in that case—for which there was no argument for the defendant before the court—showed the “’obvious purpose’ of the Second Amendment was to ‘render possible the effectiveness’ of militias, and the amendment must be ‘interpreted and applied with that end in view.’

But Justice Scalia, on Page 49 of the Heller decision, put that argument in its place.

“JUSTICE STEVENS,” Scalia wrote, “places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939). ‘[H]undreds of judges,’ we are told, ‘have relied on the view of the amendment we endorsed there,’…and ‘[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,’… And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment ‘protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.’ …

“Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case,” Scalia added. “Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.”

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a grassroots gun rights organization with some 650,000 members and supporters across the U.S., filed a solo amicus brief in this case. The New York organization is a CCRKBA affiliate, and the amicus looks at the history of the Amendment, explaining powerfully, “The Founders understood that, even if the written Constitution delivered the benefits they hoped for, man’s essential nature meant that civilization was inherently fragile and prone to violent flareups. All the more so given the federal system of shared sovereignty: brief or prolonged episodes of violence and mayhem in response to local conditions were inevitable.

“Thus ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by any sovereign,” the CCRKBA brief adds. “With this backdrop, it is folly to even suggest that the Founders believed the people ceded to any government official—let alone a local sheriff —the power to condition the right to bear arms on some sort of heightened showing of ‘cause’ or ‘need.’”

What the high court could do with the NYSR&PA case is not “radically reduce the government’s power to regulate guns,” but instead put the government in its place, like that of a servant of the people, not the master.

New York is one of a handful of states with such a restrictive approach to regulating the exercise of a constitutional right to bear arms. Thus, if the Court rules against the law, it also jeopardizes similar laws in other states including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, California, and Hawaii.

Rights activists have long contended citizens should not be required to demonstrate some “special need” in order to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection. Bearing arms, they stress, is a right, specifically enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Writing at SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe (former editor and reporter for that site) states, “Both sides in the case agree that the Constitution protects a right to carry a handgun outside of the home for self-defense, but they have very different views on whether and when the government can place restrictions on that right. The court’s decision is likely to be a major ruling on gun rights, and it could hinge on the justices’ view of the history of gun rights in England and the United States – a history that, like the right itself, the parties to the case hotly dispute.”

She lays out arguments on both sides fairly and in detail.

“The high stakes in the case are reflected in the number of ‘friend of the court’ briefs filed on both sides – over 80 in total, including one from the Biden administration supporting New York,” Howe notes.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation—which joined in a separate amicus brief in this case—perhaps summed it up best earlier this year when he observed, “A right limited to someone’s home is no right at all, and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.”

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
Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago

When NRA vanishes with Billions of our dollars grifted that should’ve gone to winning elections, saving 2A & the USA, thank Dave Workman.

“We tried to fire Wayne in ’97. Workman crossed over to block the reform 32-33.”
-Honest former NRA Director
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/shit-storm-todays-nra-heads-need-to-roll/#comment-2765008

“I too served with you in that era, and had forgotten about Workman’s duplicity.”
Thanks for helping destroy the NRA, Dave!
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/shit-storm-todays-nra-heads-need-to-roll/#comment-2766267

Workman’s toadies claim he didn’t know what he was doing. BS. Like all the other directors, he had the finance committee’s management review:
https://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/00001F57.pdf

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Whole lotta copsuckers out on Holloween. LOL

Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago

By gizz guzzlers presumably you include Lucky LaPierre? The La is optional. Hey, Lucky made the big time! Vanity Fair! Must be them Rodeo Drive suits!

THE WEIRDNESS OF WAYNE LAPIERRE
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/the-weirdness-of-wayne-lapierre-the-nras-reluctant-leader

Poor LaPew. He’s not bad. He’s just “weird” (wink-wink).

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Lotta Lucky Pierres out today LOL

Jaque
Jaque(@jaque)
1 month ago

Not sure my previous comment will be posted. It has been flagged for approval. Has Ammoland farmed out its blog Zuckerberg and company ? My comments were truthful clean and objective. If Ammoland has joined with Marxist censors then its time to put the operation out of its misery. Without readers advertisers will run away.

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

You’re the last guy who should be whining about censorship after you tried to gang up with foul-mouth WillTEX and his enforcer pals to have me blacklisted here a couple months ago.

Jaque
Jaque(@jaque)
1 month ago

IF there was ever a time for the people to revolt against the Communist political class, and their comrades of the Deep State, and Wall Street it is now. The days of peaceful political change ended last year. The Communist Biden Regime is carrying out a well planned destruction of America. And they are getting away with it. Look at the how and who that have been attacked by the FBI under fraudulent FISA court warrants of Russiagate. Look at the political prisoners of Jan 6 events. And look at the Pelosi led Tribunal – a kangaroo court designed to… Read more »

pigpen51
pigpen51(@pigpen51)
1 month ago

Looking at some of the comments, I understand the anger of the sentiments, but I also realize that bravado is not always the best way to win an argument. You cannot best serve your family while sitting in prison, or laying in a coffin. And while some of the statements might indeed be spot on correct, the fact remains that unless and until pro gun people either outnumber the people who are enforcing the laws, that say that you will not be having the right to own fully automatic machine guns, without following the proper laws and rules, if you… Read more »

HLB
HLB(@hlb482gmail-com)
1 month ago
Reply to  pigpen51

One would hope that we will know when the time is right, and that leaders will rise up”.

No leaders are going to rise up. They have had multiple opportunities to do so over many years.

If we wait for that they will bring the cattle cars up to take us to utopia.

HLB

billybob
billybob(@billybob177)
1 month ago

The Right to Keep (own) and Bear (carry about on one’s person) shall not be infringed. Serious Infringement going on if you cannot bear your lawfully guaranteed arms! It’s that simple!

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt(@gregoryromeu)
1 month ago

Realize that when the shooting starts, (SHTF), and if we keep on the path that we are on, it will, that NONE of this is going to matter. The ROE (Rules Of Engagement) will be void, there will be no courts, no prosecutors or lawyers only US and THEM fighting for the sovereignty, liberty and freedom that is and will always be guaranteed in our nation. As long as WE, The PEOPLE stay focused, keep our heads out of our asses, pay attention and stay prepared and ready for when this time WILL come. There appears to be on over-bearing,… Read more »

Tackleberry
Tackleberry(@tackleberry)
1 month ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

The real question is what the country looks like after the battlefield clears. The remaining enemy can’t be let to quietly meld back into a society, free to start their malfeasance once again. We have to settle the issue, not pass it to a subsequent generation. Drive them into the sea if need be, but they should not be allowed to exist on even a square inch of US soil.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tackleberry
Wild Bill
Wild Bill(@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tackleberry

I like it, but the Chinese and Russians might take advantage of a civil war here. Maybe even the Canadians and Mexicans would try to grab some land.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt(@gregoryromeu)
1 month ago

All the manhours and BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS of dollars wasted in the ongoing tit-for-tat over the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS will be settled when the American citizens all begin shooting in the same direction in the final efforts to DEFEND AND PROTECT the Constitution. So all the court hearings and bantering, (As is done over the border, Oil and Gas production, coal mining, etc.) is a means of distracting our people and squandering our precious resources and hard earned and stolen tax dollars from the true growth of this great nation. So, if WE, The People don’t get our heads… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by USMC0351Grunt
nrringlee
nrringlee(@nrringlee)
1 month ago

Progressives have been working to dismantle the Natural Law foundation of our republic for over 140 years. New Left Progressives, the current democrat party are simply accelerating that pace on the crack of Marxism. That has been going on for the past 50 years. Conservatives have been asleep to this threat. That is why we need to recraft all of our complaints in the past tense. The march through the institutions is complete. Leftists of all stripes know that. Death blow is coming.

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

I think that grandparents are in a unique position to learn up kids before they go to the state sponsored programing institutions. I was lucky enough to have a parent that told me that crap that they were going to tell me was for tests only, and then forget it, and to keep my mouth shut so I could get a good grade and move on.

swmft
swmft(@swmft)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

i am old enough to have brought a 410 Winchester to grade school ,had two slugs and two birdshot two 00: whatever i needed red, black or yellow paper hulls (color was for fast choosing) snakes dingoes,or bears . they went in umbrella stand by door. still have the gun @Wild Bill

gunnerdd517
gunnerdd517(@gunnerdd517)
1 month ago

I regulate my own gun control without caring about Government gun control regulation. AND will continue to do so. For the comprehension impaired, I will not comply with bans,or confiscations.

HLB
HLB(@hlb482gmail-com)
1 month ago
Reply to  gunnerdd517

Bans and confiscations are already here. I have had my guns confiscated. I have been banned from openly carrying my weapon. I personally faced the government authorities who did this to me within arms reach. I still have weapons and I still wear them openly.

HLB

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

@HLB criminals in government, fbi stealing things from people when a judge forbade it.police stealing under color of law with no crime,or proof there of. pay theft by doj administrators crime IN government is out of control; this is what it looks like before a societal collapse

HLB
HLB(@hlb482gmail-com)
1 month ago
Reply to  gunnerdd517

One comment awaiting for approval.
HLB

CaptainKerosene
CaptainKerosene(@jim_macklin)
1 month ago

SCOTUS did not decide the Miller case. There is only one comma in the Second Amendment. The right of the People is protected so the People can form a militia, not the other way around. The intent was that the People always be simarly armed as the military with individual weapons. SELF-DEFENSE IS A HUMAN RIGHT THOUSANDS OF YESRS OLD. THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY THAT TYRANNY OPPOSITION WAS RECOGNIZED AS A RIGHT. That is why the Second Amendment is under attack. Big city crime is wanted because it makes it easier to imposed gun… Read more »

swmft
swmft(@swmft)
1 month ago

difference between a ruler and a leader, a leader makes no laws other than gods and asks you to follow a ruler wants to beat you in to submission , there are almost NO leaders. that is why full auto IS needed

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt(@gregoryromeu)
1 month ago
Reply to  swmft

You DO realize we CAN own Tanks, Howitzers, Explosives, even Attack Aircraft? You just have to have the funds to purchase these items.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill(@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

Spot on! MiGs are for sale. And here in Texas there facilities that you can rent with crew-served weapons and ammunition so that you and your crew can practice!
The Brits have Centurions for sale and you can even buy old US equipment from the countries that we gave it all to when we upgraded.

Tackleberry
Tackleberry(@tackleberry)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

You can walk int AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB and buy/bid on just about any military aircraft in the boneyard. Few have the millions of dollars needed to bring an even an antiquated F-4 up to flyable status.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tackleberry
hippybiker
hippybiker(@hippy-biker)
1 month ago

From what I have read of the Miller decision. Miller never showed for the second hearing because he had passed away. Also the opinion was that those who were eligible for Militia service were obligated to bear arms suitable and similar to what the military carried!

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

so it was never pointed out short baraled shotguns were used in trench war fare

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

There was not even a defense. Lawyer didn’t show or present any evidence, and the lawyer for the gov admitted arms useful to warfare are protected, but lied to judges who knew no better and said sbs were not employed by military in the trenches.

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

As I recall McReynolds was a grouchy old bastard at the time. He was out of touch and did not like the common people. That has not changed much.
The government’s attorney was not above lying to win. And that has not changed much.

Tackleberry
Tackleberry(@tackleberry)
1 month ago
Reply to  hippybiker

The militia argument goes much further back: Presser v Illinois (1886): SCOTUS case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. SCOTUS reaffirmed that the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, and not predicated on militia and or involvment, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. Prior to Illinois’s infringement, it… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Tackleberry
Nanashi
Nanashi(@nanashi)
1 month ago

You’re WAY too generous with Miller. There wasn’t just no defense offered, the defendant was denied his choice of plea AND choice of attorney by a judge that wrote the law, then decided by a KKK member judge who also voted for the law before it came to the court. It was a show trial, plain and simple.

CaptainKerosene
CaptainKerosene(@jim_macklin)
1 month ago
Reply to  Nanashi

The ARKANSAS TRIAL JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE DECLARING THE ENTIRE 1934 LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

DDS
DDS(@dds)
1 month ago
Reply to  Nanashi

Here is “the money shot” from the Miller case: ‘ In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.… Read more »

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

On the other hand, Miller seems to stand for the proposition that any firearm that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is protected by the Second Amendment.

willyd
willyd(@willyd)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

The only thing that stands out is that ALL of the LAWERS want is a piece of the ACTION and get PAID WELL for after going any RIGHTS, they really don’t care what it takes!!!!! Try reading some of these brief’s, never printed so a common person can’t follow what they are trying to really to do to destroy any rights that we have!!!!!!

swmft
swmft(@swmft)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

which should protect machine guns as that is all they issue