Supreme Court favored 2nd Amendment over New York law

| June 23, 2022 | 21 Comments

New York established a concealed carry rule that appeared stringent and subject to the opinion of the approving officials. This made it tougher to get a concealed carry license in New York than it did in many other states. One of the points that the majority made was that the 2nd Amendment should not, as a standard, be held lower than the other rights provided by the Constitution.

From Fox News:

“[W]e do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law,” Thomas wrote, explaining that New York viewed “sensitive places” as anywhere “where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.”

This definition, Thomas said, is too broad.

“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” he wrote.

The conservative justice also looked at the plain language of the Second Amendment, which protects the right “to keep and bear arms.” He described keeping and bearing as two separate things, noting that Heller defines “bear” as “to wear, bear, or carry.” This implies public carrying, Thomas said, because someone would not generally wear their gun in a holster at home, but would “keep” it somewhere.

The 63-page opinion also explored historical restrictions on carrying handguns that New York relied on. Thomas explained why they do not justify a current restriction, noting how past regulations from centuries ago focused on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” while handguns today are relatively commonplace. While the handgun may have been considering dangerous and unusual during colonial times, the opinion said, in modern times it is “the quintessential self-defense weapon.”

Fox News has the rest of the article here.

Category: Second Amendment

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Progs are already “beshatting” themselves, as ol’ Abe would say.




Counselor, the libs are already saying they will ignore the court, in effect nullifying this decision. They’re paraphrasing Andrew Jackson’s, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Such nullification has historically not been upheld by the courts, state or federal, but with some of Obama’s flaming lib federal district and appellate judges out there, this could get very interesting very quickly in blue states. You can bet the NRA will support a test case in New York at the first sign of intent by that state to ignore the decision.


These talking heads don’t seem to understand how the federal courts work re USCT decisions. When New Yawk imprisons someone for violating its law prohibiting a person from carrying a handgun in violation of its now invalid law, a federal district court will issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the person’s immediate release. Failure to comply with the writ is contempt of court, and federal marshals can enforce the writ by force if necessary.

But what the yawkers will likely do is try to impose new state laws making the process to get a license to carry prohibitive with extensive delays and high fees. The Court has already opined that would be unconstitutional as well. So, we shall see how this shakes out for the “resistance.” That approach didn’t pan out for the southerners opposed to Brown v. The Board.


Not insurrection when Democrats do it, of course.
comment image


“…shall not be infringed.” Pretty damn simple and straight forward.

An armed society is a polite society.

Odd how some of the most gun restrictive places in the country have the highest rate of gun crime.

Gun control laws = Control of We, The People.

The Court got this one right. Took long enough.


An armed man is a citizen.
An unarmed man is a subject.


comment image



Well, that’s a very polite FU to the arrogant Brit




Forrest Bondurant

The sound you’re hearing are liberal heads exploding in outrage over this SCOTUS decision.




And yet the tyrants in DC are seeking to further encroach upon the 2A with their gun control bill.

jeff LPH 3 63-66

How about Kalifornia wants gun owners to have gun insurance.


You mean like an extra full magazine just in case?


Can you imagine if Trump were serving a 2nd term and the court would be 7-2 next year?


But, gee, doesn’t the Constitution apply to NY too?


Welp, fifteen RINO decepticons just voted with 50 D-rat Prog senators to pass the so-called “gun safety” bill, which the meat puppet will promptly sign after it passes the House.

Forrest Bondurant


Roy Blunt (OH)
Richard Burr (NC)
Shelley Moore Capito (WV)
Bill Cassidy (LA)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Cornyn (TX)
Joni Ernst (IA)
Lindsey Graham (NC)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Rob Portman (OH)
Mitt Romney (UT)
Thom Tillis (NC)
Pat Toomey (PA)
Todd Young (IN)

Of them, Blunt, Burr and Portman are set to retire at the end of the year, so them supporting the bill is their way of sticking it to their constituents on their way out.

Murkowski is up for re-election this year, so hopefully Alaskan’s will divest themselves of her “service” at the ballot box.


Remember and primary these people when they come up for re-election. GOP can do better.