Supreme Court 2A Case Will Make Gun Carry Legal Everywhere in US

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

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Can the government stop you from carrying a concealed handgun in public? That’s the question before the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

As the petitioners pointed out in their petition for writ of certiorari, “Perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question after this Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. City of Chicago, is whether the Second Amendment secures the individual right to bear arms for self-defense where confrontations often occur: outside the home.” Petitioners argued that the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment do indeed secure this right.

On its face, this is a simple case. New York has had a handgun licensing system for more than 100 years. Nowadays, New York prohibits its citizens from carrying a handgun outside of their home without a license, and it requires license applicants to convince a licensing officer they have “proper cause” to carry a concealed firearm. In reality, unless they’re a celebrity, judge or other VIP, nearly all license applications are denied.

In his license request, petitioner Robert Nash cited “a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood  and the fact that he had recently completed an advanced firearm safety training course.”

The licensing officer denied Nash’s request, saying he failed to show “proper cause.”

Petitioner Brendan Koch said he applied for a license to “allow him to carry a firearm for self-defense.” Koch, too, cited a bevy of training courses he had taken in support of his license request.

The same licensing officer denied Koch’s request, stating he “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.”

The district court summarized: “Nash and Koch do not satisfy the ‘proper cause’ requirement because they do not ‘face any special or unique danger to [their] life.’”

Nash and Koch argued that the New York law violated their constitutional right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case joined by a dozen state firearms associations. The brief lays out the history of why concealed carry is a core Second Amendment right. Scores of other pro-gun rights groups also filed friend-of-the-court briefs. These groups are optimistic about this case. Otherwise, they argue, the Court’s conservative majority would not have agreed to hear the case.

But what would a victory look like?

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president, Alan M. Gottlieb, said if the petitioners are victorious, there could be several likely outcomes – good, better, best and outstanding.

“I believe this law will be overturned. I believe we are going to win. The question is how big we win,” Gottlieb explained.

“Lower than good,” Gottlieb said, “would be if the court finds the law unconstitutional but that it applies only to the individual plaintiffs, and they send directions for New York to follow. That would be the lowest form of victory.”

A better victory, he said, would be if the court finds the New York law unconstitutional facially – unconstitutional on its face. Eight other states have similar “show cause” laws: California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey. All of their laws would be impacted by such a decision.

“But we’d really like the court to go further than that, and go to a ‘shall issue’ law – one that says if the applicant is not a prohibited individual, the government shall issue a license – because the ‘good cause’ requirement is unconstitutional and doesn’t work,” Gottlieb said. “Even better would be if they require a standard of review of heightened scrutiny, like strict scrutiny, because carrying a firearm outside the home is a core Second Amendment right.”

This scrutiny, Gottlieb said, would put the burden on the government to show why they should be allowed to infringe upon a right. It would require the government to show a court why lower levels of scrutiny couldn’t solve a potential public interest without infringing upon a constitutional right.

“Of course, they could expand our Second Amendment rights, which would affect other rights, not just carry laws,” Gottlieb said. “But that’s unlikely, since Chief Justice Roberts likes narrow decisions.”

Whatever the outcome, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is destined to become a landmark Second Amendment case. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

Subscribe
Notify of
73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ExGob
ExGob
8 days ago

I don’t know much about the topic of law, but I do know a little about our country’s Constitution, and I cannot understand why the individual states, cities, towns, counties, etc. are allowed to make, pass and enforce laws that are direct infringements on the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. Can anyone enlighten me?

DDS
DDS
7 days ago
Reply to  ExGob

Originally, the prohibitions we know as the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress. Read the opinion in US v Cruikshank for an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank (1876) “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, …” Over the years, SCOTUS has “incorporated” most of the Bill of Rights and ruled that they apply to the individual states as well. The most… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona
7 days ago
Reply to  DDS

SCOTUS could give a sweeping ruling, which McDonald was, and remind the states what McDonald said, and what Heller said, and then clarify for the idiots: “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Meaning no government entity may ban any weapon, blade, firearm, laser, plasma cannon, etc, or the parts thereof, nor attempt to limit capacity, rate of fire, accuracy, range, etc. Any weapon suitable to the military is suitable to the People, including full automatic select fire weapons. Nor may any state or federal government legislate in regards to such weapons, to restrict the People’s… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona
7 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

They could and should do the above, but they won’t, and we will inch further toward war to re-establish Constitutional limitations on this treasonous government.

Finnky
Finnky
4 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

I agree that they won’t issue such a broad ruling. For political reasons I don’t think they aught to, though they should be careful to leave door open for such in near future. If the rules as broadly as they should, you can bet court would be packed before 2022 election. i would be pleased with a ruling requiring ‘shall issue’ of all the states. Could dream of constitutional carry or national reciprocity- but do not anticipate they will go that far. Good news is license carry would rise in several of the most egregious states. This in turn would… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

While a nice compromise, to some minds, shall issue is not in the Constitution.
No matter, Roberts and Kavenaugh will fuck this up.

Finnky
Finnky
4 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@WB – Agreed. Not a permanent compromise, but a stepping stone, as far as we are likely to achieve in short term. This year nationwide ‘shall issue’. 2023 strike down egregious restrictions on shall issue. 2025 with a new president and republican congress elected largely on “Let’s go Brandon” and support for gun rights… who knows what they can/will do. I fear SCOTUS will rule for ‘shall issue’ from all states. Then the anti states will (1) deny reciprocity and (2) set crazy restrictions for licensing and on where and how one can carry. I can see it now –… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Finnky
ExGob
ExGob
6 days ago
Reply to  DDS

Thank you very much for your intelligent response to my query. If I understand it correctly, it appears that with respect to our Constitution and regardless of it, the states can pretty much do as they please unless and until a law is challenged, a decision is reached by SCOTUS, and any unchallenged laws are considered to be legal and enforceable. That doesn’t say much for ‘inalienable rights’, does it? Again, thank you.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 days ago
Reply to  ExGob

Take heart! Most of the BOR has been incorporated against the states, I think that the third amendment has not been incorporated against the states, yet.
DDS and AZ gave you such good responses that I can not really add anything to them.
A very knowledgeable populace at Ammoland.

Tank
Tank
5 days ago
Reply to  ExGob

In one word it’s consent. All governments work on the premise of consent. When the government over steps the people’s
Consent – anarchy – revolutions usually happens. Somethings it’s organic most of the time it’s Masonic Hidden Hand involvement. Let’s to read the symbols & you will come to know how it really works.

Symbols don’t lie. People wearing different chameleon masks lie. Religious, political, educational, family, friends, businessman, salesmen etc.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 days ago
Reply to  Tank

I don’t know. I don’t think that the communists govern by consent. Consent of the survivors, maybe. The Nazis did not rule by consent, Tyrants and kings do not rule by consent. They rule by killing bigger than their opponents.
I think that one can think about history and conclude that who ever kills the biggest gets to be the government. And that could happen here, again, too.

MikeRoss
MikeRoss
8 days ago

Never underestimate the ability of Supreme Court justices to do wrong thing.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
8 days ago

The RIGHT and mandate of being armed is given to mankind from the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY through SCRIPTURE see: Luke 22:36. The second amendment was written into law as a guarantee of that right. The 2A is a legal way to preserve the free state of mankind against tyranny and treason, both of which were major reasons for the war for freedom and independence that we know as the revolutionary war. The 2A is the legal authorization for the free, individual American citizen to keep and bear arms, not just any arms, military grade arms as in; would be used… Read more »

Bubba
Bubba
8 days ago

The real truth is basically the first 10 Amendments are Unalienable(or more modern use Inalienable) That means fuck SCOTUS, fuck Biden, fuck all those who wish to usurp the Constitution. They do not have the right to change or take away those specific rights. That’s why they are Unalienable. That is why the founding fathers clarified this with the “Bill of Rights” I say hang all those who attempt to change or make rulings on their own opinions. That’s the issue today. Judges rule on their belief. Not the Constitution. They have no right to do so So hang them… Read more »

Last edited 8 days ago by Bubba
Aardvark
Aardvark
8 days ago

I am not as optimistic. Here in New York, you need a license to merely possess a handgun. CCW is a whole different animal. I can see New York losing its ability to deny “just because” but still leave the onerous licensing process in place. The only difference being that after six to twelve months and interviews with your four references they would have to issue.

Arizona
Arizona
7 days ago
Reply to  Aardvark

If tar and feathering was still employed, NY wouldn’t be like it is, nor would the federal gov. The politicians need to be reminded who their masters are: the People.

George
George
8 days ago

I fear we will lose 5-4 with Roberts against . He’s bought and paid for.

Tank
Tank
8 days ago

If you haven’t figured out SCOTUS is rigged you haven’t been paying attention.

Because of the amount of immigration being allowed it will be a scripted narrative that the composition of the US has changed & changes in the Constitution are necessary. It’s how the Metal worker codex “Rebus” do it.

We are living in the transformation of it.

gooder12
gooder12
8 days ago

I have been gunning for 57 years and got my CC Permit about 45 years ago, which was the first year SD offered them. I have been waiting for at least 45 years for The Right, Even The Left, or The Court to give us National CC, and I have not been holding my breath as none of em have done much other than Lip Service to our Quest. I am not that worried about Gun Control taking my guns away as I have lived with many forms of the new and improved control ideas for about 45 years now.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
8 days ago
Reply to  gooder12

45 did his best to unrig it.

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
8 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Sadly, Trump’s desire to violate the fourth amendment, the second amendment, and the 14th amendment, is why I could not vote for him in 2020! Since I live in Wyoming why not voting for him did not make any difference, but the fact remains is that he was not a friend to the second amendment community regarding the above amendments and our rights. He supported red flag laws just like Crenshaw down in Texas does, just like Rubio does, and so many other RINO Republicans! I refuse to continue to vote for the lesser of the evils. The Republic is… Read more »

Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

SO you voted for the devil instead ! Would you also cut off your nose to spite your face ?

Last edited 8 days ago by Oldvet
Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Will… I always wonder how many other people say that .

ExGob
ExGob
8 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Count me in.

Oldvet
Oldvet
4 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Will…That and the effect there of was exactly my point.
Rain water will fill a bucket one drop at a time .

Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Will…Did not know that , yeah Abbot sounds better . Easier to spell to.

Last edited 8 days ago by Oldvet
Grigori
Grigori
7 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Why does failure to support a RINO who not only fails to help us, they go against us on many things, automatically translate into “I AM A DAMN COMMUNIST DEMOCRAT”. For four years I watched Trump “drain the Swamp” by appointing, nominating, and hiring, almost exclusively, Swamp creatures to positions of power, influence, and prominence. Instead of Nationwide Reciprocity, we got a bumpstock ban. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the border to build his promised wall. I could go on, but I lack the time, today. After the first of the year, people shared what was… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Grigori
Oldvet
Oldvet
6 days ago
Reply to  Grigori

Grigori …So you like what biden is doing so much better ?

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
7 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

No, actually I believe in voting my conscience, ethically, morally, and most assuredly constitutionally!

Apparently you disagree with that whole concept!

Oldvet
Oldvet
6 days ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

Those may be in some question perhaps you need to do some soul searching .

Oldman
Oldman
6 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Or, Trump could pick a female with an eye on the future 1st elected female President

ExGob
ExGob
6 days ago
Reply to  Oldman

You’re right, ‘cause the one currently seated wasn’t elected, she was just put in, as appeasement. A potential truly electable president would have chosen a running mate who could perform as a VP should instead of one who, obviously, knows little to nothing about the job requirements. And if she were depending on Biden to train her, she came out of the gate SOL. Those who didn’t already know that, now do, if they will admit it, at least to themselves. Hopefully, we can depend on Donald J. Trump to select a fully qualified and capable vice presidential candidate as… Read more »

Oldvet
Oldvet
6 days ago
Reply to  ExGob

ExGob …I think she was put in as oboma’s choice because he thought he could easily manipulate her , WITH china’s blessing of course !!!!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

Yeah, Biden’s handlers have turned America into a place of shortages in a mere eight months. A food shortage at Christmas … in America??!!!

Last edited 4 days ago by Wild Bill
Will
Will
1 day ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Oldvet,the 12th amendment covers that and it says he couldn’t. In part because he’s not eligible to be president.

Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

N75…You know on second thought , I don’t think I would have told that to anyone .

2gats
2gats
8 days ago

Careful sucking down that hopium.

We are about to be screwed. Here comes the grand take away and the final push for totalitarianism

The question, when they screw us is….So The F What?

If 2A is the amendment that protects all others, what will you do when they take it away and render it symbolic?

StLPro2A
StLPro2A
8 days ago
Reply to  2gats

This decision may be the “straw that broke the camel’s back”……either way. Roberts may be bought and owned. Including all politicians, Justices’ finances should be an open book, audited in the public arena each year during and post-service. Don’t like that?? Don’t serve.

PistolGrip44
PistolGrip44
8 days ago

A permit should not be required at all. Criminals don’t have permits.

StLPro2A
StLPro2A
8 days ago
Reply to  PistolGrip44

Criminals are Useful Idiot Tools of the Left’s attack on the 2A. Can’t restrict their usefulness.

Arizona
Arizona
7 days ago
Reply to  PistolGrip44

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is all ANY American needs, to own and carry anywhere the public may travel, as it is the law of the land, and specifically forbids the government from interfering with just one unalienable right: the right to keep and bear arms.

All laws referring to firearms are unconstitutional infringements.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
8 days ago

Chief Justice Roberts can French kiss my ass. I am so sick of legal bullshit and excuses; give us our rights back- all of them.

Bdcaron
Bdcaron
8 days ago

It’s like someone has something on him

Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago
Reply to  Bdcaron

There were “rumors” tieinghim to epstine .

Tank
Tank
8 days ago
Reply to  Oldvet

The level & amount of extortion are unprecedented & extent of it is not known. I assume the worst of it’s more than we know & perhaps will ever know.

Take note that they specifically only targeted the powerful/wealthy/influential of culture & society for a reason.

Makes the KGB Swallows & STASI look PG13 & pale by comparison.

Last edited 8 days ago by Tank
Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago
Reply to  Tank

Tank…Depending on what they want , I don’t think there is a limit to how low they will go .

Grigori
Grigori
7 days ago
Reply to  Bdcaron

I always figured for the amount of treasonous behaviour he has churned out, pics of him in compromising positions with children, animals, and/or perhaps corpses.

Desert Rat
Desert Rat
8 days ago

Roberts’ name is on the flight log of the Epstein Lolita Express to Pedophile Isle along with Bill & Hillary. I”m sure they have video of him doing something to someone probably underage which seems to be what happens there. They couldn’t get Antonin Scalia on the Lolita Express so they smothered him.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
8 days ago
Reply to  Desert Rat

Are you sure you have the right guy? That is a SERIOUS ALLEGATION.

Arm up and carry on

Oldvet
Oldvet
8 days ago

DB…That’s the same that I heard .

Oldman
Oldman
8 days ago

They can’t give us something back that they could not (legally) take away.
We still have those rights that God gave us, don’t we?

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
8 days ago

I don’t have much faith in the supreme court to do the right thing and rule for gun owners, after all the court is made up of lawyers.
I expect them to send it back down to a lower court to fight it out.

Mark
Mark
8 days ago

I wouldn’t be so fast to count your chickens. The article doesn’t mention what a loss might look like and how it could embolden the anti-gun lobby. This court, even with a conservative majority, has consistently failed to make decisions that seem logical. Specifically, the Obamacare mandate, political contributions from PACs and most unfathomable, Kelo vs. New London (taking property for private corporations). I frankly have little faith in Roberts willingness to stand up for our rights.

Bucketboy
Bucketboy
8 days ago
Reply to  Mark

You are correct. Anyone counting on this court to actually follow the constitution…..
Robert’s a complete phony along with most of the so called constitutionalists

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
8 days ago
Reply to  Bucketboy

And, anybody who reads their precedents knows that they do not consistently follow them and they are the ones who wrote them.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” 

Tank
Tank
8 days ago
Reply to  Bucketboy

Correct they will not. They will spin the living document narrative & b/c the amount of immigration changes need to be made. 4th turning, transformation etc.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
8 days ago
Reply to  Mark

You have Roberts pegged, and Roberts is the reason that there is not a conservative majority.

Tank
Tank
8 days ago

I suspect as the chaos continues the long term plan is to eventually have the US exhaust itself & resources by descending into more corruption & lawlessness from multiple issues. Supply chain increases & shortages, homelessness, medical tyranny, planned & deliberate political ideological smupidity etc. The roman maxim metaphor meaning: “By endurance we conquer”. Some of you may recall this statement in the video below. I know I was watching & paying attention then. NWO Speech https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/09/08/the-other-9-11-george-h-w-bush-s-1990-new-world-order-speech/ At some point they will play the tyrant’s cry “public safety” card more & more as the struggle to survive becomes more difficult.… Read more »

chiefton
chiefton
8 days ago

The Constitutional outcome would be that, unless an individual has been banned from possessing by a court of law, the people as a whole are allowed to carry a firearm in public and no laws can be written to deprive that right.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
8 days ago
Reply to  chiefton

Allowed? If it is one’s Right, then one is not “allowed”.

TStheDeplorable
TStheDeplorable
8 days ago

Unfortunately, even the most conservative Supreme Court will defer to the legislative branch on issues like restrictions on magazine capacity, restrictions on ammo type, requirements of training, requirements of annual qualification and the standards to qualify, carrying a license, undergoing psychological assessments, bans on carrying on public-owned property, allowing laws that render carrying on posted “no guns” property a crime, and requiring multi-million dollar insurance polices. It sucks, but it’s true. So, even if we win this case, the anti-gun crowd will make compliance very difficult so that many will be unwittingly committing crimes by carrying, and they will make… Read more »

DDS
DDS
8 days ago

“Can the government stop you from carrying a concealed handgun in public?” No, they most certainly cannot. If the government(s) had that power, the use of firearms in crime in the USA would be nearly zero. Can they stop you from carrying LEGALLY? Yes, but that’s an entirely different topic. Note that speeding, cultivation of marijuana, and manufacture of untaxed whiskey are all illegal activities that are enjoyed daily by many in the USA. And so is the carrying of concealed weapons in areas where illegal if some individual considers the risk justified. You see, American’s have a funny habit… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
8 days ago
Reply to  DDS

Are you suggesting people drive in excess of posted speed limits? Gosh I would never do such a thing.

Well OK – have only significantly exceeded speed limit a few times and that was long enough ago for statutes of limitations to apply. By significantly, I mean 100% over…

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
9 days ago

Lol, what a joke.

Welp, I reckon you guys are gonna have to wait to take up arms till after the US Supreme Court of jesters says you can do so even though everybody was walking around armed in this country for a long time before tyrants started dragging you off to jail for being lawful. I’m already hearing big city dictators are buying extra safes to put all their new loot in they are expecting to get from selling you your rights.

So much for Civil War 2.0. Looks like it’s off, at least for awhile.

Last edited 9 days ago by Patriot Solutions
Finnky
Finnky
9 days ago

You overestimate governmental efficiency. Whatever you pay for the permit, they’ll spend at least that much processing and recording your permit.
monumental waste, but certainly not generating mountains of loot for “city dictators”.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
8 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

Permits were not even required during the founding era boot licker. New Jersey was the only state that required permits back then commie because it has always been commie land. Show me where the founders wrote the government has the authority to lease pre-existing non-political God granted biblical rights to The People. The second amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols or revolvers. The second amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT!!!!! The technology of the firearm is irrelevant along with who’s hand the technology is in also irrelevant when resisting tyrants. The restrictions on… Read more »

Choogie
Choogie
8 days ago

ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as long as the citizen isn’t criminal in his/her actions. There are reasons a person shouldn’t own or have a gun in ones possession but for government to infringe upon the rights of the upright citizens to be armed is an infringement of the Second Amendment. That is my opinion. I haven’t studied law.

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
8 days ago
Reply to  Choogie

In the founding era they arrested those people then when they were released they got booted out the jail door and their guns thrown into the dirt street out front. Even the insurrectionists of Shays Rebellion which is precedent for disarming insurrectionists and being cited in courts today got their RKBA’s back after a couple of years “The brief argues that many “courts have been relentless and creative in their efforts to uphold virtually any restriction on keeping or bearing arms,” and that those courts “lack the clear and firm guidance required for them to follow the law, rather than… Read more »

swmft
swmft
8 days ago

and he is correct, the bill of rights is a carve-out that restricts government, does not work well. people have to attack government however they can to keep “rights” if you have lots of money you can play the legal game , until the internet people could not find enough like minded people to fund a court fight for their rights,now there is a greater ability,but more people say well that is not really a right,or they dont want you armed because you might just tell them to blow it out their ars

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
8 days ago
Reply to  swmft

Although there is a plethora of standing precedent on the books it tends to infringe upon the perceived boot licking knuckle dragging tyrants authority because they rule by force of arms not the Constitution. Miranda vs Arizona (1966) : “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” And, oddly enough Colorado ultimately still gets it right when the questions are answered correctly. Colorado Supreme Court Precedent https://www.anylaw.com/case/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-john-raymond-dewitt/colorado-court-of-appeals/09-15-2011/t6VdSGYBTlTomsSBDSg4 Heller says permits are constitutional in spite of US Supreme Court precedent saying otherwise and when I was looking up a… Read more »

Last edited 8 days ago by Patriot Solutions
Finnky
Finnky
8 days ago

Was in no way condoning permitting schemes. Was simply pointing out that’s no one is (or will be) pocketing piles of loot.

Rights are not to be infringed and I support limitedgovernment. Anything to take their fingers out of my pocket.

Arizona
Arizona
7 days ago

100% correct. Any weapon suitable to the defense of life, liberty or property, against ANY PERSON OR GOVERNMENT who seeks to deprive you, is protected, as the amendment specifically restricts the government from having ANY authority over personal arms. No matter what advances in tech, from plasma cannon to death ray, we can have it, and the gov cannot stop us.

swmft
swmft
8 days ago

the freemasons wanted a requirement in the constitution that every able bodied male have a gun and at least ten shot and powder ,the southern states said no, because they saw this as arming male slaves too