The New York law is clearly unconstitutional.
The court has largely dodged the issue since issuing two landmark opinions in 2008 and 2010, when it held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms at home for self- defense.
Gun rights advocates and even some of the justices themselves have expressed frustration that the court has declined to further define the scope of the right as lower courts across the country have upheld restrictions.
Three years ago, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas charged that the “Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
[…]
The new case concerns a New York law governing licenses to carry concealed handguns in public. It requires residents to show they have what the state calls an “actual and articulable” need to do so.
[…]
“The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention,” New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote in court papers.
No other Constitutional right requires the citizen to declare an affirmative need – subject to review by a government official – in order to exercise it. Imagine if you had to declare a “need” before being allowed to speak, or practice your religion, or assemble, or get a jury trial, or petition your government, or get a lawyer… and if some government official decided that your “need” did not meet his or her ambiguous threshold, you wouldn’t be allowed to do it.
Nuts, right?
Right.
So why would that standard apply to the rights protected in the 2nd Amendment if it wouldn’t to those protected by the 1st?
Imagine if you had to declare a “need” before being allowed to speak, or practice your religion, or assemble, or get a jury trial, or petition your government, or get a lawyer… and if some government official decided that your “need” did not meet his or her ambiguous threshold, you wouldn’t be allowed to do it.
Relax, Owen. That’s on Nancy’s agenda for June.
“No other Constitutional right requires the citizen to declare an affirmative need – subject to review by a government official – in order to exercise it.”
Sovereign Immunity would be one. Some protests would be another.
I’m a little worried that the justices will take on the case where there have been 2 mass shootings in a week killed 18 Asian and white people.
But then of course, they didn’t act when thousands of Black and Hispanics have been shot and killed in the past few years.
I’d like to know just how Dirty Dick Durbin can chair the Senate Judiciary committee and with a straight face and a fake emotional plea beg for his fellows to do “real action”. Look at his shitstain of a state, IL, breaking records for Gun Violence while having arguably the strictest laws and hurdles to gun ownership in the country. Fuck him.
Dirty Dick gets to do what he wants because his party was successful last November. Your 1A rights no longer include discussing what they were successful at doing. So successful they feel the need to hide behind armed troops and razor wire.
“So successful they feel the need to hide behind armed troops and razor wire.”
Well there was a riot at the capital, don’t you know. They need the troops and razor wire to feel safe now. Forget about the rest of the country’s riot ‘problems’. Those are okay as the Dem Party incited them.
First, troops and razor wire, how long before State hunger games for tax money grants? it would be great TV, never discount that as a reason in itself. I am kind of surprised the Government hasn’t moved from DC to Hawaii. Just take the island for federal use only.