Just yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in the first Second Amendment case in over a decade. The case, NYSRPA v. Bruen is a challenge to the New York regulatory scheme for issuing conceal carry licenses to citizens. The plaintiffs in the case were denied a conceal carry license even though they met all of the requirements and are of good moral character.
The state argues that just because it can issue a conceal carry license, does not mean that it must issue and that the state has full discretion in that arena. Even arguing at one point that they are not sure that citizens even have a constitutional right to carry a firearm concealed outside of the home and that population density could be a determining factor in those decisions. If this is truly the view of the state of New York, then they are completely fine with stripping thousands of people of their constitutional right to “bear arms” just because they may live in a heavily populated area of the state.
Much of the oral argument did focus around time, place, and manner restrictions and Chief Justice Roberts pushed the New York Solicitor General about this issue when he asked, “[h]ow many muggings take place in a forest?” thus implying that citizen probably have more of a need to protect themselves in a busy crime-ridden locale than on a deserted trail in rural New York.
The overall questioning from the Justices seemed to pinpoint the main issue of this case—the statute is too broad and too restrictive of constitutional rights. When someone who wants to carry a firearm for their protection because they may live in a dangerous neighborhood, the state has determined that they can deny that person the right to carry and be prepared, simply because nothing has happened to threaten them in particular.
For the most part lower courts have thumbed their noses at the decision from Heller , which provides for individual Second Amendment rights, and have used a balancing test to look at the government’s interest in passing Second Amendment restrictions. We could be looking at a decision from the Court that would elevate the Second Amendment to a place of strict scrutiny review and eliminate the made-up sliding scale that lower courts have relied upon for years.
The Second Amendment Law Center supports cases like this that move the body of Second Amendment jurisprudence forward in a positive way and create strong precedent. Our amicus brief was filed in support of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and individual plaintiffs who seek to exercise their constitutional rights.
In anticipation of a good ruling from this case, we are already preparing multiple lawsuits that will follow on the heels of what we anticipate to be a groundbreaking opinion.
Please help us build that war chest and get more positive Second Amendment cases heard in courts throughout the country. DONATE HERE.
