Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The 2A Is Not a ‘Second Class Right’: Great Victory in the Supreme Court
In what has been described as “the biggest win for gun rights since the Court’s Heller ruling,” the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, today held that New York’s “proper-cause requirement” violates…
“ …the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”
The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., vs. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al., and the full opinion can be found here. Justice Thomas writes:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
In one of the most bracing and vibrant defenses of the Second Amendment seen in a very long time— sadly, from any court in the land — the opinion declared:
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.” 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. 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.
In a most interesting concurring opinion, possibly significant not only for its brilliant reasoning but when viewed in the light of recent barbarities being committed at the homes of the conservative Justices, Justice Alito noted:
“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so,”
It will surprise no one, I am sure, that the three liberal Justices dissented. One promising note: Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority!
If I sound just a tad more exuberant about this than I have been about most recent developments battering our Beloved Nation lately, it is because I am overjoyed and overwhelmed with gratitude and appreciation that we are finally seeing perhaps the beginning of leadership by the adult and mature segment of our government instead of the Ding Dong School we have been witnessing for the last year and a half.
God bless the six justices who gave us this great news and God Bless America!
Published in General
A victory for our country, for the Bill of Rights, and for all law-abiding citizens. Well said, Jim!
Newsom rant starts in 5 . 4 . 3 . . .
It seems that the NY governor has already thrown a tantrum. I’ll bet that in CA the approach will be to claim that this is a narrow ruling affecting only New York City and that nothing in CA will change.
EDIT:
Right on cue: Gavin Newsom rages at Supreme Court over New York Second Amendment decision (msn.com)
Perhaps this will bring national reciprocity for concealed carry a step closer.
You know that NY officials both state and local will for the most part fight this tooth and nail. They will come up with incredibly complicated ways to thwart this. It’ll be years before people in NYC, for one example, are actually able to exercise their right.
Don’t get me wrong – I also rejoice in this decision. It’s just that we all know how progressives work when in power.
I always want to ask fools such as Hochul and Newsom, “What do you have in mind for me that my having a gun makes you nervous?”
Excerpt from Alito’s concurrence:
Second paragraph exposes the silly emotionalism and stupidity of Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. WTF does allowing people to carry guns in public have to do with domestic violence where they can already have a gun?
This is excellent news. I have conflicting emotions about Mitch McConnell today. On the one hand his legislative agenda is dangerous for our rights. On the other hand without his courage on the issues of Judges we would have lost the right to keep and bear arms today. It is a strange thing.
Great. A step in the right direction, but for the totalitarians who own the federal government and too many state governments, whom we mistakenly call Democrats, just bothersome.
HUGE win, especially the ruling itself. Arguably bigger than McDonald v. Chicago. This is going to upset a whole lot of apple carts.
Don’t hold your breath. That would require courage on the part of Republicans. For today, a courageous Republican is an oxymoron.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/06/23/dems-lose-their-minds-doj-makes-concerning-statement-on-scotus-gun-rights-decision-n582973
Very well said; tragic, sad, disgusting– but true. And if it doesn’t change to a considerable degree, all the red waves in the world won’t make a bit of difference.
I agree — with a broad smile on my face. Question: what does this do to the so-called “bipartisan” gun control law about to be passed by the Senate with the inane assistance of 14 Republican’s? Seems to me it means it is DOA but I would like to know what others think about it. Could we be so lucky as for that absurdity to be the first apple cart to go?
Worth noting that the winners were represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement. His big-time firm, Kirkland and Ellis, just announced that it would no longer accept cases involving the Second Amendment. Clement and another of Kirkland’s star litigators involved in the case, have, in response, announced that they are leaving the firm.
Isn’t this what Kirkland and Ellis appear to have done?
The power of wokeness is far more lethal than many of us are inclined to realize!
Based on some of the unhinged interpretations of this case that I’m reading, it will only harden support for the bill. I don’t actually think that they have much to do with one another for better or worse.
Said Jim George:
I immediately wondered this same thing. But will the Bidenistas take a vote just to show their disdain for the “judicial activists” for the midterm and test possible support for swelling of the court later (as if we’ve never dealt with activists on the left, only that’s ok).
It looks like that is already being taken care of, by the Senate Democrats themselves, who have decided to go all Washington Post on each other. https://onlygunsandmoney.com/2022/06/23/did-feinstein-just-sabotage-the-new-gun-bill.html
God bless the six justices who gave us this great news and God Bless America!
Amen!
Happy Birthday, Justice!
From Not The Bee:
Doesn’t Roberts have a tendency to vote with the majority on what would otherwise be a 5-4, because he thinks the “reputation” of the court is more important than actual decisions?
Yabbut he hasn’t revealed/discovered/disciplined the SCOTUS leaker, as far as we know. That is doing more damage to the reputation of the court than any decision in this term could. Well, there is always tomorrow.
Maybe the leaker was one of Roberts’ clerks.
No conflict on my end; I’ve always acknowledged he’s been great on judges….which is a service he exacts at a very high price as far as conservatives are concerned.
I have only read snippets of the opinion. Did Thomas’ opinion rest on the 14th amendment and not the 2nd? The blurbs I saw seemed to say that it was solely the 14th.
Can someone translate the practical effect of this for us non-legalese speaking people? Does it force all the states to become at least “shall issue”? And what effect does this have the for interstate reciprocity?
Jim, good post. And one more reminder of why I tend to give McConnell a pass when he gets so much blow back on this and other sites. Have not digested the new gun legislation proposal yet. But him getting A. Barrett on the Court insures Roberts cannot go wobbly on the key Constitutional issues.
Doesn’t this decision discourage red flag laws in that they deprive someone of his 2nd Amendment rights before a crime has been committed? In other words, they deprive a (so far) law abiding citizen of his right to self protection with a gun. That seems at least tangentially related to this case.
I hope organizations are already prepping their challenges to the “just do something” gun grab.
The 14th amendment is what the Government uses to “incorporate” the rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution to the states.
The 14th amendment compels the states to observe and follow your Constitutional rights.
Breyer’s dissent isn’t very supportive of any individual liberty rights. While justifying the ability of the government to almost totally ban guns, he comments suggesting that the government can also limit pretty significantly speech.