Antis in Denial as SCOTUS Rules for RKBA; Gun Rights Prevail!

Survival of the Republic & Sovereign People: Armed Citizenry - Part Three
Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has issued an opinion declaring New York State’s “just cause” requirement for getting a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional.

U.S.A.-( Holding that “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,” the U.S. Supreme Court by a 6-3 ruling has hammered a century-old New York law requiring “just cause” to obtain a concealed carry permit. Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas observed:

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

But anti-gun New York State Attorney General Letitia James issued a defiant statement in which she declared, “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to strike down New York’s proper cause requirement to carry a concealed weapon is incredibly disappointing. For more than a century, this law has protected New Yorkers from harm by ensuring that there are reasonable and appropriate regulations for guns in public spaces.

“The Supreme Court made its decision,” James said in a prepared statement, “but the fight to protect American families from gun violence will march on. In the days to come, my office will be taking action to address the potential harm that this ruling may cause, and we will continue to defend the constitutionality of our state’s laws, as we’ve always done. We will work with the Governor and Legislature to amend our licensing statute that will continue to protect New Yorkers. I want to reassure all New Yorkers that our robust gun protection laws remain intact and we will be working with our partners in government to further strengthen them.”

Thomas’ ruling runs 63 pages, and there are concurring opinions from Justices Brett Kavanaugh (with Chief Justice John Roberts joining), Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.

In the course of striking down the New York law, Justice Thomas also blew a hole in Joe Biden’s oft-repeated canard that the Second Amendment placed limits on gun owners.

Thomas notes on Page 37, “…there is little evidence of an early American practice of regulating public carry by the general public. This should come as no surprise—English subjects founded the Colonies at about the time England had itself begun to eliminate restrictions on the ownership and use of handguns.”

The National Rifle Association, which supported the case, issued a statement:

“The National Rifle Association (NRA) welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Court affirmed that the right to bear arms does not stop at a person’s front door. This is the most significant Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade. 

“Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home. This ruling brings life-saving justice to law-abiding Americans who have lived under unconstitutional regimes all across our country, particularly in cities and states with revolving door criminal justice systems, no cash bail and increased harassment of law-enforcement. ”

The NRA has been focused on promoting “shall-issue” protocols and eliminating “may-issue” laws since the late 1980s, and before today’s decision, only eight states still operated under “may-issue” statutes. The Supreme Court’s ruling today marks the end of these subjective, unconstitutional permitting schemes.

“This is a monumental win for NRA members and for gun owners across the country. New York’s egregious law, which left its residents’ self-defense rights to the whim of a government bureaucrat, has been declared unconstitutional and must be changed. New Yorkers will soon be able to defend themselves outside of their homes without first having to prove that they have a sufficient “need” to exercise their fundamental rights,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “This is more than just a great day for New York because this ruling opens the door to rightly change the law in the seven remaining states that still don’t recognize the right to carry a firearm for personal protection. The NRA has been at the forefront of this movement for over 30 years and was proud to bring this successful challenge to New York’s unconstitutional law.”

The case challenged New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry licenses demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm outside of their home. New York routinely used this requirement to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to properly protect themselves. New York is one of eight states that operate under such a “may issue” regime, and the NRA has long fought to abolish this practice in favor of “shall issue” or “constitutional carry” in which law-abiding citizens can exercise their right to carry as long as they meet certain objective criteria.

While the importance of this case cannot be understated and today NRA members enjoy a well-deserved victory, NRA remains committed to continuing this fight. Today’s ruling established the right to carry does not disappear at a person’s front door, but many unconstitutional gun control laws remain in America. The NRA will continue to fight these laws until every law-abiding American can exercise their right to defend themselves and their families with the firearm of their choosing.”

Likewise, the Second Amendment Foundation—which submitted an amicus brief in the case—issued this statement:

Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York’s “good cause” requirement to obtain a carry permit is a long-overdue affirmation that the right to bear arms exists outside the home, and always has, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“We are gratified that the high court has said there can be no bureaucratic prerequisite to exercising one’s constitutionally-protected right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For too many generations, New York’s requirement has been the vehicle by which the constitutional rights of average law-abiding citizens have been deprived under color of law.

“Government bureaucrats have routinely been arbitrary and all-too-eager to prevent honest people from having the means to defend themselves against violent crime outside of their homes,” he continued. “This pattern of exclusivity—allowing only those with wealth and political connections to legally carry guns in public—has been an affront to the constitution for decades, and now officials in a handful of other states with similar arbitrary requirements are on notice they can no longer perpetuate what amounts to an outrage against the constitution. We’ll see how this ruling affects eight other states with similar laws including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.”

‘SAF congratulated the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association for its victory, and for its daunting determination to see this battle through to its conclusion. This case was only allowed to be brought because of SAF’s 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago which overturned that city’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to be applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

“We expect bureaucrats and even judges in various courts to resist today’s ruling,” Gottlieb acknowledged. “Too many of them have resisted and even ignored the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald rulings on Second Amendment rights in the past. We’re putting them on notice we’ll be watching for any such misconduct and we won’t be shy about taking legal action especially if New York City officials adopt near city wide ‘sensitive area’ restrictions making it impossible to carry in New York City.

“This is a clear victory for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners,” he added, “and a staggering defeat for the gun prohibition movement and their billionaire financiers. Elitists who have their personal, armed private security have no business trying to undermine the rights of less-privileged citizens”

So, what does it all mean?

First, similar laws in other states appear to be nullified. Those states are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, plus the District of Columbia, have analogues to the “proper cause” standard, the opinion notes.

That much seems borne out when Justice Thomas notes on Page 29, “Throughout modern Anglo-American history, the right to keep and bear arms in public has traditionally been subject to well-defined restrictions governing the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner of carry, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms. But apart from a handful of late 19th-century jurisdictions, the historical record compiled by respondents does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense. Nor is there any such historical tradition limiting public carry only to those law-abiding citizens who demonstrate a special need for self-defense. We conclude that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper cause requirement. Under Heller’s text-and-history standard, the proper cause requirement is therefore unconstitutional.”

Finally, on Page 51, Thomas writes, “The historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation. Under the common law, individuals could not carry deadly weapons in a manner likely to terrorize others. Similarly, although surety statutes did not directly restrict public carry, they did provide financial incentives for responsible arms carrying. Finally, States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”

That paragraph sends a signal anti-gunners will definitely dislike.

The ruling will take some time to fully digest, and it will give gun prohibitionists a case of heartburn, but for now, the Supreme Court has demolished the argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was confined to the home.

It never was, and New York has been violating the right to bear arms for more than 100 years.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This historic decision will be talked about and debated for years to come.

About Dave Workman

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

Dave Workman

3.8 5 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doug G.

Like we named the turncoat Republicans who voted for the recent gun control “compromise”, let’s name and spend some time on the justice’s who voted against our clearly named Constitutional right to self defense, anywhere. Justices’ Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer apparently think we don’t have a right to armed self defense as stated in the Constitution they all swore to defend and uphold. What’s their punishment?? Do we get to impeach them? Get them disbarred? The same 3 voted to keep Roe v. Wade and abortion as a Constitutional right. Once again, violating their oaths and the law of the… Read more »


The New York State AG has stated that their century old law ‘has protected individuals from harm’. Where, pray tell, did she get that impression? Criminals don’t give a damn about laws, except to praise them for making their victims more vulnerable and less apt to risk a defensive action. Why are so many people so ignorant about the fact that antigun laws serve only to increase the crime rate and the number of criminals.


These laws certainly didn’t “protect” Kitty Genovese in 1964 when she was raped and murdered in NYC, on the street while her neighbors did nothing. We don’t know if she had applied for a permit, but we know if she had, she would almost certainly been denied. If she’d chosen to carry anyway, she’d have had to go to somewhere like Virginia to buy a gun, and carry with the certainty she would be arrested if found with it. That story has played out thousands of times in New York. Not everyone would consider arming themselves for safery, of course.… Read more »

Wild Bill

I remember that. She was killed right out on the sidewalk. The perp even came back to stab her a few more times! If she would have had a gun she’d be alive today.


A.G. James did not say which individuals. She was undoubtedly referring to well connected individuals and those within the criminal class who likely tithe to Democrats or their party.


The worst thing about this article is the reference to NRA taking credit. Dave, I know you’re NRA instructor, but we don’t need the bs about NRA. You do good articles otherwise.


The former NRA has been taking credit for things they have nothing to do with for many years. Everyone knows that too but their bullshit continues.


When will you man up & apologize for putting LaPew in position to wreck the NRA?

“We tried to fire Wayne in ’97. Workman turned coat to block the reform 32-33.”

“I served with you & had forgotten about Workman’s duplicity.”

(Note to low-IQ coward: Downvoting reality doesn’t change it.)

Last edited 3 days ago by Russn8r

The NRA might have filled an amicus brief, but LaPierre really needs to go. Really.


Half of NY owns firearms, legally and illegally. James lives in a fantasy.

Desert Guy

A meaningless decision. There is no mechanism in either the Constitution or United States Code for peanalizing non-compliance with the Constitution or a SCOTUS ruling. No fines. No jail time.


that is what title 18 is problem is the system needs to enforce it that is why I say there are no good cops the boys in blue will not arrest their bosses who are in violation of the law


I believe people should be going to jail, for violating others rights.There lies the problem. No recourse. They should be fined & prison. Paying restitution for lives lost.


hung by the neck until dead


I bet it was like Springtime in the Monkey House in the Oval Office yesterday! The Fecal matter is most likely smeared all over the walls!

Desert Guy

You’ve insulted monkeys. The ASPCA will get you for that!


monkeys are a lot smarter then demoncrats


Please apply this to the list of names who voted with the democrats!!!!! What does turncoat operative mean / one who switches to an opposing side or party specifically : “traitor”. What is the synonym of turncoat?  traitor, deserter, renegade, recreant, rat, betrayer, defector, apostate, spy, runagate and tergiversator. “The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system,” Cheney wrote on Twitter in May. Yet amazingly a caucus of lifelong Republican politicos in Washington are announcing to the world with… Read more »


Who the hell is Cheney ?


dick “Im too important to go to jail for shooting someone carelessly” cheney’s daughter

Last edited 3 days ago by swmft

Those that no longer defend our constitution who are elected republicans. Removing constitutional rights one at a time. Remember the names when you vote. These are those names that can not be trusted. The Republicans who joined Democrats in voting for the bill were Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Pat… Read more »

Desert Guy

Don’t forget: Negotiating Rights Away…


For those who think Chris Cox wasn’t in on The Big Grift:

Gov Romney, thanks for supporting gun owners’ rights. Good luck in Nov.”

Wayne Loves Cox.png

There is plenty of work ahead.

Every state affected well have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

Into complying

They well pass new laws saying take us back to court.

They well delay by process again and again.

Communist’s do not like losing and really do not care for the rule of law.


It will only be allowed to proceed when the people actually decide to exercise that right in MASS. Stick together. When a person is charged for violating the law. Then large masses of armed people need to protest. Otherwise it will mean absolutely nothing. The enforcers will keep on keeping on for the political hacks.


large mass of armed arrest police that violate ruling take gun and badge strip them naked and run them out of town


Yes, we need to assembly peaceably and armed in numbers large enough to cause the other side pause.



federal government just did that so we have a lot of work


Things are getting incrementally better. Moving in the right direction is a good thing. It is certainly better than moving in the wrong direction, for sure. As I understand the latest ruling, we have a right to have a permit. Were South Carolina’s laws still as they were prior to 1996, this would be a big deal for us, too. Prior to 96, you had to prove a “need” to SLED for a carry permit. Self defense, according to our betters at SLED, was not a need for the average citizen. If you were a jewelry salesman, pharmaceutical rep, high… Read more »


reason they did away with malitias is they were the enforcement of title 18 against government and the control of leos


I wonder when we can have an open carry rally at a cafe in Manhattan.


would be fun have a gold and polished chrome desert eagle that would be perfect for the occasion


One thing is a given about leftists in general and the majority of gun control advocates in particular: They never admit fault, even when their beliefs, schemes, principles or notions are proven patently false. It’s like a religion which they invested their lives with. For today’s ruling by SCOTUS to reach out into the highly restricted states, apropos to shall issue, it will require, in some of these states, that they be dragged kicking and screaming before the bar of justice. All because they think, in their sense of righteous indignation, that they are morally right and we aren’t. All… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Wass

paraphrasing Justice Thomas, either open or concealed, your choice.

Patriot Solutions

It’s the winds choice to choose which way it blows a shirt. I haven’t seen a single open carrier in months here except when I pass my reflection in a window.


Here in South Carolina where we have had open carry with permit for about ten months now, I have seen exactly two open carriers. One in line ahead of me in a Quick Trip convienience store and the other in an Ace Hardware. The guy in the QT got some odd stares from the clerk as he exited the store. I was going to say something to the clerk along the lines that “good guys can do that now”, but it was busy, the line was long, and I did not wish to annoy customers by delaying their transactions with… Read more »


I did.



You don’t see many around here either.


How about both. I seldom open carry and choose to go concealed. However, I believe one should have the choice. Whatever floats your boat!


it would be nice to have the choice, pistol hunting would be easier ,strap it on and go ,


Narrow in THIS sense: “Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In DC v. Heller the Court concluded that the 2A protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central… Read more »

Last edited 3 days ago by Russn8r


This didn’t strike down permitting systems. It didn’t touch gun free zones. It didn’t lift restrictions on modes of carry. It didn’t limit what types of guns may be restricted or banned.

It simply said that the government cannot deny you a permit on the basis that you’re just a pleb.


6-3 is not narrow and you had to realistically believe that the three lefties would vote they way they did.


Now comes the lefts cry for court packing. lol

Desert Guy

If the dirty tricks in November fail, There will be a 13-member SCOTUS by January 5th. Otherwise, it’ll happen by 2025…


Narrow in this sense:

“many face serious risk of violence when they venture outside home, 2A was understood at adoption to apply to those circumstances.

The Court’s historical survey establishes that, and today’s decision holds a State may not enforce a law, like Sullivan, that prevents law-abiding residents from carrying for this purpose.

That is all we decide. Nothing about who may possess or requirements that must be met to buy. Nor about kinds of weapons people may possess. Nor disturbed Heller or McD v Chi about restrictions on possession or carrying.”



laugh my ass off when the crime rates in some of these cities starts falling and they are saying it is anything but people stopping the criminals not the police