Gottlieb: Victory Likely in Supreme Court’s Landmark Gun-Rights Case

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

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- In his appearance before the United States Supreme Court Wednesday, attorney Paul Clement argued that New York made it all but impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights: specifically, their right to carry firearms outside of their home for the purpose of self-defense.

Clement, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush and represents the petitioners in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, told the justices that carrying a concealed firearm outside the home is constitutionally protected activity, for which citizens should not be required to prove need or show cause.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case joined by a dozen state firearms associations. Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, believes Clement made his case. Gottlieb predicts a victory will be forthcoming.

“The oral arguments went very well for the gun-rights movement. I think the questions from the justices were telling. It appears from the questions that we may not get any of the Democrat-appointed justices to fully recognize the Second Amendment.” Gottlieb said. “However, the remaining justices tipped their hands. I predict at least a 5-4 or possibly a 6-3 victory, but the Chief Justice didn’t tip his hand too much during questioning.”

Gottlieb noted that the two attorneys representing the respondents – New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood and Brian H. Fletcher, the U.S. Justice Department’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General – repeatedly suggested that if the justices did not support New York’s law, they should remand the case back to the lower court for a fact-finding trial.

“That is telling to me,” Gottlieb said. “I think at that point the anti-gun rights justices, as well as the attorneys for New York, recognized they are not going to win.”

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen will likely join the Supreme Court’s previous landmark gun-rights decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“I think the justices recognize that lower courts thumbed their noses at Heller and McDonald, and that their decisions have been all over the place. I think the Supreme Court may be looking at cleaning up that mess,” Gottlieb said.

He believes issues not raised during the oral arguments are also telling.

“The anti-gun rights judges never addressed Second Amendment issues. They went out into the weeds on sociology questions rather than constitutional questions. They were more interested in trying to demonize guns on sociological levels, rather than acknowledging that people have constitutional rights,” Gottlieb said.

During the oral arguments, Clement deftly responded to every question from the justices, and he attacked New York’s requirement that applicants for a concealed-carry license show cause sufficient enough to convince a licensing officer that they should be granted a license to exercise their constitutional right. Eight other states have similar “show cause” laws, all of which could be impacted by the high court’s decision. The rest of the country uses a “shall issue” permitting system.

Underwood and Fletcher said issuing more licenses would result in more firearms on the street, and they argued that the justices should consider population density before making their decision –as if New York residents have different constitutional rights than residents of Wyoming.

“Simply having more firearms cannot be a problem,” Clement said during his rebuttal. “That underscores how completely untailored this law is, and population density is a double-edged sword. In a dense population, there are an awful lot of people who have Second Amendment rights.”

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
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brad
Brad (@brad-o)
24 days ago

I always hear the case that government has an interest in this or that . Is the government a separate entity from the people ? The same government of the people by the people ? I know the answer and there lies the problem we have in this country . Too many times they’re more worried about protecting themselves .and their interest. Protecting our liberties comes second when they’re in conflict with their interest . Which also proves the real reason the founders found it necessary for the 2a . I’d like to hear a court explain the definition of… Read more »

Last edited 24 days ago by Brad
JRA42A
JRA42A (@jaronson72gmail-com)
24 days ago

It’s been on obvious to all of us that follow gun rights cases that many lower courts have not been following the ruling of either Heller or McDonald. So, what can be done about that? It seems to me that if a judge doesn’t follow a SCOTUS ruling there should be some repercussions. Even if the SCOTUS “cleans up” that ruling, how does that guarantee the lower courts will follow it? You know it’s the liberal lower courts that are doing it and will continue doing it to promote the anti-freedom agenda.

vepr
vepr (@vepr)
24 days ago

Unfortunately, neither Robert’s, Kavanaugh, or barret can be trusted.

The last 2 were more mitch ” the snake” McConnell’s picks than Trumps.

GoBoy
GoBoy (@huel)
24 days ago

I hope that the ruling is for our constitution rights and I pray that I live to hear the ruling next year

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
24 days ago

While I cannot guess which way Roberts would vote if he is to break a tie, i’m pretty sure he will end up voting for plaintiffs in 6-3 victory. His vote will be made not to show solidarity, but because it allows write the opinion which clarifies precedent for lower courts. We know the other five would write far broader rulings and Roberts wants a narrow ruling with smallest possible social impact. Bah-humbug!
I’d much rather have a sweeping-broad ruling in favor of civil rights – in time for Christmas.

Finnky
Finnky (@finnks)
24 days ago

After listening to arguments before SCOTUS that certainly seems likely. In fact that is exactly what Clement argues for. If that is all we ask for, we certainly won’t get more. At one point one of the female justices (not sure which) asked pointed questions regarding historic distain for (and restriction of) concealed carry. I think that was a wonderful opportunity for plaintiffs who should have expressed willingness to accept constitutional open carry as relief. DA is horrified by possibility of ‘shall issue’ concealed carry, can only imagine their response to unfettered open carry. There were frequent statements that more… Read more »

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy (@reen-mtn-boy)
25 days ago

What ever monies were paid to New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood,should be refunded to them as she thankfully did a rather poor job,I agree with Mr. Gottlieb thoughts from what I heard in the oral arguments today.

Last edited 25 days ago by Green Mtn. Boy
Arizona
Arizona (@arizona)
25 days ago

There is no need to ask permission to exercise a right. If permission is required, aka a permit, license, FOID card, etc, what’s at stake is a privilege. All gun control laws are unconstitutional infringements. The right to keep and bear arms predates the founding of the country, and the BOR restricts government from interfering with that right. It prohibits any governmental power over the right.