New York is one of the few remaining states labeled as “may issue” which means gun owners have no right to defend themselves unless a government bureaucrat determines that they should have the right to do so.
Gun owners in New York must show justification for why they want to carry a firearm in public. But, of course, wanting to defend your life or the life of your family is NOT justification to most of the liberal elites in New York and getting a permit in many places is extremely difficult.
Two gun owners are serving as plaintiffs in a monumental case that is now before the Supreme Court of the United States and could have a huge impact on the remaining states that have “may issue” laws.
New York City, in particular, is particularly egregious when it comes to “giving” people the right to defend themselves against the rising criminal enterprise taking hold in the country. For example, we recently posted a story about a criminal who threw Molotov Cocktail into a Deli in Brooklyn, injuring one employee.
The big question is, do gun owners have any hope that the justices will do the right thing in this case?
Trump’s nominees have been surprisingly disappointing in several big cases. And Chief Justice Roberts is all but gone to the “other side” at this point, joining the liberal justices far too often.
However, some good news for gun owners appears to be that the justices, even Roberts, indicate that New York’s law is far too restrictive. They don’t seem to be buying the excuse that justification is needed for a natural right.
Here is part of what Robert’s said,
I’m not sure that’s right. I mean, regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in the particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited. But the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”
This quote from Roberts is rather stunning.
Roberts didn’t just make the case that New York’s law is too restrictive; he made the case for Constitutional Carry!
Gun owners have successfully gotten rid of the permit requirement in nearly half the country already. The most common argument in favor of Constitutional Carry by gun owners is that a permit makes the 2nd Amendment a “privilege” and no longer a right.
While Constitutional Carry now covers almost half the country, many states still have a “shall issue” permit system, meaning there is no need to justify why you are carrying a firearm.
However, there are still nine states listed as “may issue” with little hope that the elected officials in these Democrat-heavy states will ever go to a “shall issue” system.
However, gun owners have not had much trust in the court system as liberal judges, even in red states, continue to slam the 2nd Amendment and come down on the wrong side of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court itself has not had a major 2nd Amendment case in a decade and has refused to take up other major gun cases in recent years.
The SCOTUS now has an opportunity to do the right thing. It has the chance to finally remove a major barrier for millions of Americans to be able to exercise their right to self-defense and stick it to the gun grabbers for years to come.
What do you think SCOTUS will do with the New York case?
Let us know in the comments below!