Home Forums Daily Spark of Liberty Friday, April 30, 2021 Supreme Court to Hear Case on Second Amendment

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • Chris
      Post count: 309

      On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit involving the Second Amendment. See the highlights and articles below.

      On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by two petitioners challenging New York’s denial of their applications for concealed-carry firearm licenses. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett, represents the first time in more than a decade that the high court will hear a Second Amendment case. Here’s your lawsplainer for the case—and Second Amendment jurisprudence.

      The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” The Heller decision further held that an individual’s right exists regardless of his service in a militia, reasoning that the “militia” clause served as a prefatory clause, explaining the purpose of the protection contained in the operative clause, but not limiting the individual right.

      Two years after the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, the high court in McDonald v. City of Chicago held that right “is fully applicable to the States” and state subdivisions, such as counties and cities.

      To understand the import of McDonald, one must remember that the Bill of Rights amended the federal Constitution and when those amendments were ratified, they only protected individuals from infringements by the federal government—and more specifically Congress. However, after the Civil War, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment “fundamentally altered our country’s federal system,” by providing, among other things, that a state may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

      In New York State Rifle, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged New York’s denial of their applications to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. In New York, citizens are banned entirely from the open carry of handguns, while permitting citizens to carry a concealed handgun upon issuance of a license. However, members of the general public, such as Nash and Koch, may only be granted a license under New York law “when proper cause exists.”

      “Proper cause” is not defined by statute, but state courts have ruled that “an applicant seeking a license to carry a handgun for self-defense “must ‘demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’” Living in a high-crime area is insufficient.

      The state denied Nash and Koch permits to carry concealed handguns, concluding they failed to establish “proper cause.” Nash and Koch sued in a federal district court to challenge the law, claiming requiring them to establish “proper cause” to arm themselves in public violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

      2nd Amendment

      Read the articles:
      What You Need To Know About The Big Gun Rights Case The Supreme Court Just Took

      Supreme Court Takes Up Major NRA-Backed Gun Rights Case

      Supreme Court to Decide Whether Second Amendment Protects Concealed Carry of Firearms

      An Upcoming SCOTUS Case Could Be The Biggest Win For Gun Owners In A Generation

      What does the Second Amendment really mean? Bill Whittle explains in the video below. Click on the image to view.

      “Tired of listening to Progressives tell you that the Second Amendment only allows people in militias to keep and bear arms? Or that the Founders would have never intended the Second Amendment to apply to modern weapons? In his latest FIREWALL Bill recounts a remarkable conversation about the precise wording of the Second Amendment, and sums up why the document says what it means and means what it says.”


      Second Amendment with Bill Whittle

      In Related News:
      What happened with Mark McCloskey, the man in St. Louis, Missouri, who along with his wife, used legally owned firearms to defend their lives and property against BLM and Antifa trespassers? View the video below to find out.

      Mark McCloskey Considering Run For Mo. Senate Seat

      Mark McCloskey senate seat


    • cindy
      Post count: 73

      After reading the above information I have just realized how little I know about the Second Amendment. Most people don’t know, myself included, that the Second Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms. Isn’t this what we always hear repeated over and over again. Here is the truth.

      “The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”; it does not confer that right. The Second Amendment is an admonition to government that it may not take away your right to bear arms, which is inherent.” https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/the_second_amendment_does_not_give_us_the_right_to_bear_arms.html
      The right to protect oneself is an unalienable right just like the right to breath, the right to make decisions about health, etc. The Constitution supports these unalienable rights. Let’s not give the supreme court any more power than necessary. Yes we all want order in the world, but without liberty we have slavery.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.