SCOTUS and the Second Amendment

| November 7, 2021

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments last week on the first significant Second Amendment case SCOTUS has accepted in over a decade.

Their decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is expected in June. The arguments heard disclosed the several ways in which New York has violated it’s citizen’s rights under the Constitution, and faced an uphill battle in defending its concealed carry permitting scheme.

New York’s May Issue laws prohibit all but a select few from carrying firearms in public. Those that may do so only after proving to the government they have a “good cause” for “needing” to exercise the right.

The High Court Heard a Critical Second Amendment Case

by Frank Miniter

The U.S. Supreme Court just held the argument America has been waiting for—waiting for more than a decade as lower courts repeatedly disagreed on critical Second Amendment jurisprudence. Waited so long, in fact, that Justice Clarence Thomas actually lamented that the Second Amendment was being treated as a “disfavored” right.

The case is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is the NRA’s affiliate in the state of New York. The basic question before the court is whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights protects law-abiding citizens’ right to “bear arms” for self-defense when they step out of their homes, and if so, whether New York can nevertheless make that right subject to a showing of extraordinary need that disqualifies most law-abiding persons.

The Court’s opinion might not come until the end of its term in June 2022, but just having an argument in such an important case was a big step toward a more robust application of the Second Amendment in our courts.

While this case is focused on “may-issue” laws in New York, it could impact America’s other “may-issue” jurisdictions (areas that give licensing officials the discretion to deny citizens the use of this constitutional right for seemingly any reason whatsoever).

New York is one of the nine remaining May Issue states. Haven’t heard to odds on a favorable outcome, but 5-4 works.

America’s 1st Freedom

Category: Guns, Legal, SCOTUS

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“…Shall not be infringed.” Never been able to figure out what is so hard for grumbermint to figure out what that means. Webster’s is your friend.

It is so apropos that a God Inspired Document, that is supposed to guarantee our Freedoms, is pictured with a Most Saintly Device that will help guarantee our freedoms. More proof that AW1Ed loves us and wants us to be happy.

It has ALWAYS been about control of We, The People…not control of gunz.

Jeff LPH 3, 63-66

The Anti 2nd A NYPD commish has a problem with this. When I lived in nyc, the only peeps allowed to carry concealed were business owners who carried money more or less from and to their bank and people who knew the right people. I had a nyc target permit when I was a member of our shooting team and when I moved to Nassau County NY, I had another target permit from nyc to carry my firearms into nyc from Nassau County. The carry permit I had when I worked in nyc was an open carry permit which I never knew that it was an open carry until just before I retired. I was told that when I kept the gun inside the side zippered jacket when raining and unzipped when performing my job. When I started work, we were US Trucking merging with Brinks and in the company rule book, if you had to take your gun home, it had to be wrapped in brown paper and unloaded. For some strange reason I threw out the rule book along with the Brinks rule book before moving to Florida. Another screwy thing was that the S&W Mod 10 .38’s and all other ones that had 6 round cylinders, you had to keep an empty cylinder under the hammer possibly because older guns didn’t have the safety block between the hammer and cylinder. Our gunsmith showed us what happens when you hit the hammer with a hammer and he broke… Read more »


Hi Jeff,

As a fellow relocated Floridian, please allow me to TL:DR…

Gun rights– NY=Bad, FL=Good.

Happy to be living here in the gunshine state and sad that I still have family that think living in *shudder* NJ is a good thing.


The words before “shall not” make it abundantlyfkingclear to whom the RIGHT belongs, and whilst there be air in these lungs, fight in these veins, it will remain OUR RIGHT!

“,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”

Rise the fk up, People! It is OUR right! Man-enumerated, God-given!

A Proud Infidel®™

If Gun Control laws were truly the panacea for crime that idiot liberals claim, places like Chicago, NYC nad NJ would be crime-free utopias, but all those laws really do is assure criminals via legislation that law-abiding people will be unarmed VICTIMS.


The Constitutionally protected rights are rights bestowed by our Creator, not by men or a document.

The liberals believe in no God but Power and Themselves, therefore they believe they can overthrow what God Himself has given us.

John Locke is just some dead white man, so his writings are not important – to them.


#FJB and all who sail in him.

Frankie Cee

“New York’s May Issue laws prohibit all but a select few from carrying firearms in public.”
Not true, actually. The criminal element is not restricted by those restrictive laws, and can, and do, carry freely.

Steve 1371

I believe there is a law restricting states from blockading other states from interstate commerce. Those of us in northern New England are blockaded from the rest of the country by N Y and Mass. It seems our 2nd amendment rights end at their border. The Vermont Federation of Sportsman Clubs is assisting in this SCOTUS case.

Old tanker

Simple fact. Gun laws ONLY impact the law abiding. The criminals, by definition, do not obey laws ergo gun laws do not affect them.

This isn’t about crime, it’s about keeping the serfs compliant and paying their taxes and not a threat to their betters, the ruling class.

Skivvy Stacker

The most inconsistent argument made against the 2nd Amendment is that it is intended as a collective right designed only for membership in a militia. Then we have Cotton Eye Joe Biden recently telling us that the Amendment was always about regulating what types of weapons the people would be allowed to own.
The Bill of Rights is not now, nor ever has been a list of prohibitions against the people. It is and always will be a control on the government. And you could erase the entire Bill of Rights today, but those rights would remain in place and valid, because they are not granted by the Constitution, but protected by it from the government.
That should always be the prominent, and overwhelming argument when discussing any aspect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the fact that it is not a document that controls the activities of the people, but limits all aspects and powers of the government in order to keep it on a leash.