June 23, 2022: SCOTUS NYSRPA vs BRUEN

Justice Thomas wrote the majority decision immediately referring to decisions in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago to state that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. New York’s practice and policy of “proper cause” to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” has been found unconstitutional.

This “may issue” policy is a stark contrast to 43 other states “shall issue” policy. The NRA has been active in working with state legislatures to turn “may issue” into “shall issue” for a couple of decades. The goal being to provide relief for the general community of Citizens to obtain required permits for lawful carry of firearms for self-defense. You will not be shocked to see that the other “may issue” states besides New York are: California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. These states typically justify their “may issue” policy as a means to achieve an important governmental interest. So what interest would that be? The interest in the ruling class to remain in power. In the most simplistic terms, these governments want subjects, not Citizens.

The opinion covers the courts research into the historical understanding of the Second Amendment and the approaches taken to decide Heller, McDonald and this case. It is refreshing to read logical constructs that are not marred by revisionist historical propaganda. The natural right to self-defense predates the Constitution. The methods chosen are consistent with methods available at the time.

Justice Alito wrote a separate concurring decision to respond to the dissent. He walks through the dissent opinion pointing out the irrelevance of mass shootings, suicide, domestic disputes, children and adolecents killed by guns, and the number of guns in this country in relation to the question of the suit in NYSRPA vs BRUEN. Specifically that these topics are NOT related to the question to be decided. This case is a simple example of the two philosophical approaches to reaching decisions by members of the Supreme Court. The three dissenting Justices rely on tying to tie causation of tangential topics as the logic for the dissent. It’s a cover for their actions to remove liberty from Citizens to achieve their vision of the greater good. They have no historical, logical, legal basis for their dissent.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring decision about the “may Issue” licensing regimes. Where discretionary judgment is given to bureaucrats to create additional classes of Citizens among those who are not prohibited individuals. Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Governments make restrictions, but the restrictions must be applied to all eligible Citizens equally.

Justice Barrett wrote a separate concurring decision pointing out technical details of post-ratification treatment of the Bill of Rights. I will admit most of that went over my head.

I would not attempt to convince a parent who has lost a child to a mass murderer that the Second Amendment is essential to the continuation of our Liberty. Emotion and reason are sometimes mutually exclusive when a trauma has been inflicted. Tragedies will continue because of the unhinged among us. Groups that focus their resources on trying to deny lawful activity, would better server the greater good by finding ways to find and treat those on an escalating path to violence.

The next wave of legislation coming after “shall issue” permits is permit-less or constitutional carry. Proponents offer that the Second Amendment is their permit. Starting with Alaska in 2003, state legislatures have codified the permit-less carry with restrictions. according to handgunlaw.us, in January 2023 there will be 25 states recognizing permit-less carry. Some of these laws only apply to their State residents while others grant permission to US Citizens. Vermont seems to be a special case in that it doesn’t have specific laws making concealed carry for self-defense illegal, therefore any person who can legally posses a firearm under State and Federal Law can carry a concealed handgun in Vermont. This is not legal advice, I’m not a lawyer.