Supreme Court to Judge New York’s Awful Gun Laws
Last updated: November 30, 2021 · Originally published: April 28, 2021
No wonder the anti-gunners are trying so hard to pack the Supreme Court!
Just a few days ago, we reported that there’s a major push in Congress to add more justices to the Supreme Court. Now we all know why: The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear an NRA-backed case that could either reverse–or cement–New York State’s awful concealed-carry (CCW) laws. Clearly, the anti-gunners are eager to try to disrupt the pro-gun vs. anti-gun balance in the current Court. Currently, most Court watchers consider that to be 4 pro, 4 con, and 1 swing vote. With an anti-gun Congress, any newly created Supreme Court positions would probably be filled by anti-gun justices. Given that Illinois’ gun laws just got an overhaul, gun-grabbers in New York are obviously nervous.
The below is directly from NRA-ILA.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will hear an NRA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. This sets the stage for the Supreme Court to affirm what most states already hold as true, that there is an individual right to self-defense outside of the home.
This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.
Speaking on the Court’s decision, Jason Ouimet, executive director of NRA-ILA said, “The court rarely takes Second Amendment cases. Now it’s decided to hear one of the most critical Second Amendment issues. We’re confident that the court will tell New York and the other states that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves is fundamental, and doesn’t vanish when we leave our homes.”
In addition to ruling on this statute, this case will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify the precedent that it has created surrounding the Second Amendment. It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller. In 2010, the court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
It is hard to overstate how important this case is. The decision will affect the laws in many states that currently restrict carrying a firearm outside of the home. NRA-ILA is working hard to defend your constitutional rights and is prepared to argue this case in order to protect the rights of Americans everywhere.
The case is called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Reader Favorites
Firearms reference desk
Plain-English references worth bookmarking — the gear terms behind every review, plus NFA and carry law.
| Term | Category |
|---|---|
| Striker-fired | Action |
| MOA | Optics |
| Twist rate | Ballistics |
30 gun, ammo and optics terms explained in plain English.
Open the glossary → Network| 2026 at a glance | |
|---|---|
| NFA tax stamp | $0 |
| Permitless carry | 29 states |
| Suppressors legal | 42 states |
50+ NFA, carry and gun-law terms, from Freedom's Lodge.
View full chart →
How about Bloomberg’s body guards? Do as I say, Not as I do???
I have real concerns about how the current SC will rule on this issue. They haven’t done anything in the last 4 years that I thought was constitutional…
Very simple win for the lowlife, communist, power hungry and low intellect gun grabbers. All they have to do is convince the supreme court that the 2nd amendment contains a typo. Keep is spelled right so you can keep your arms. However, bear was actually meant to be spelled bare which protects your right to wear short sleeves. Slam dunk!
Seems like the Second Amendment is the ONLY one of the “Bill of Rights” that is currently restricted ONLY TO YOUR HOME and not in Public (you are required to have a permit in most states outside of your home). So much for our “rights”, huh?
Everyone is getting excited about this but I think that the decision will be a narrow, watered down narrative that will only apply to N Y instead of coming out and stating that all gun control laws are an infringement and are thus illegal. They never address the real cause and effect but use the band aid approach.
This is long over due, the 2nd Amendment should be treated as equal to the 1st, 4th , 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution. This is a civil rights issue not a political issue that it has become. Now it is just a question of whether or not John Roberts will do the right thing or the politically correct thing.
The liberals, plus Roberts and probably Comey Barret and Kavanaugh will vote against the people! They can gather for region. But not be allowed to carry weapons!
We all have a right to protect ourselves and our loved ones, this right does not vanish when we leave home. If so then all security in the government must immediately be disarmed unless in their own respective homes.