Posted on May 2, 2021
The Supreme Court Just Took Up a Landmark Second Amendment Case. Here’s What You Need to Know
1.14K
37
6
14
14
0
https://fee.org/articles/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-landmark-second-amendment-case-here-s-what-you-need-to-know/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020_FEEWeekly
“The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self-protection,’ NBC News reports.
It will mark the first time in more than a decade that the high court will take up a major case central to gun rights.
A Flat Out Prohibition?
The case involves gun owners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, who applied for a license to carry a handgun. Unlike most US states, New York prohibits carrying a loaded handgun outside the home without a carry license.
According to an amicus brief filed with the court in December, Nash, citing a rash of robberies in his neighborhood, requested a license to carry for self-defense after completing an advanced firearm safety training course.
He was denied, with a police officer stating Nash had not shown “proper cause.” Koch was denied on similar grounds.
As the Giffords Law Center notes, licenses are only granted to individuals who show “proper cause,” which means applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” This essentially gives law enforcement sole and complete discretion in who receives a permit, which the plaintiffs argue is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.
"A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court’s affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. "The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of 'the people' through some 'proper cause.' To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people."
“The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self-protection,’ NBC News reports.
It will mark the first time in more than a decade that the high court will take up a major case central to gun rights.
A Flat Out Prohibition?
The case involves gun owners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, who applied for a license to carry a handgun. Unlike most US states, New York prohibits carrying a loaded handgun outside the home without a carry license.
According to an amicus brief filed with the court in December, Nash, citing a rash of robberies in his neighborhood, requested a license to carry for self-defense after completing an advanced firearm safety training course.
He was denied, with a police officer stating Nash had not shown “proper cause.” Koch was denied on similar grounds.
As the Giffords Law Center notes, licenses are only granted to individuals who show “proper cause,” which means applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” This essentially gives law enforcement sole and complete discretion in who receives a permit, which the plaintiffs argue is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.
"A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court’s affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. "The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of 'the people' through some 'proper cause.' To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people."
2nd Amendment
Supreme Court
State of New York
Concealed Carry
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
6
6
0
An end run on the 2nd Amendment. I feel sure the left is watching carefully and we had better play close attention as well.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
Don't forget Carol Bowne. From Wikipedia-
Carol M. Bowne, née Ehly was a 39-year-old woman who was stabbed to death by her obsessed ex-boyfriend Michael Eitel on June 3, 2015, at her home in Berlin, New Jersey. Eitel was a convicted felon having served five years in prison. Prior to her murder, Bowne filed a restraining order against Eitel as well as submitted an application to obtain a firearm permit. Firearm permits in New Jersey are legislated to take a maximum of 30 days to be issued. At the time of her murder, 42 days after her permit request, Bowne had not been issued a firearm permit. As a result of Carol Bowne's murder, the gun laws in New Jersey were altered to make it easier for domestic violence victims to own and carry firearms. Governor Phil Murphy has since rescinded the Executive Order issued by Governor Christie, returning to the legal environment that was a contributing factor in Carol Bowne's death.
Carol M. Bowne, née Ehly was a 39-year-old woman who was stabbed to death by her obsessed ex-boyfriend Michael Eitel on June 3, 2015, at her home in Berlin, New Jersey. Eitel was a convicted felon having served five years in prison. Prior to her murder, Bowne filed a restraining order against Eitel as well as submitted an application to obtain a firearm permit. Firearm permits in New Jersey are legislated to take a maximum of 30 days to be issued. At the time of her murder, 42 days after her permit request, Bowne had not been issued a firearm permit. As a result of Carol Bowne's murder, the gun laws in New Jersey were altered to make it easier for domestic violence victims to own and carry firearms. Governor Phil Murphy has since rescinded the Executive Order issued by Governor Christie, returning to the legal environment that was a contributing factor in Carol Bowne's death.
(6)
(0)
Lt Col Charlie Brown
Of course...we always punish the law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, she is not around to sue...
(3)
(0)
SSG Samuel Kermon
Lt Col Charlie Brown felons have more rights in court and less compunction to abide by the law.
(3)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google