1. Except that they reworded the petitioner’s original question, no doubt so that the ruling will only apply in very narrow terms of this individual case. I just have no faith in the court anymore.

   4

2. To be honest I’m not expecting much. This is the supreme court after all. And a court in the general sense. I think I’ve made my viewpoints of the supreme and all courts known as well as 98% of judges in the United States.

   2

3. “Court to take up major gun-rights case”
   https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/court-to-take-up-major-gun-rights-case/

   “Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.”

   “The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

   “After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.”

   Yup, this scares me too. And New York State will probably vacate the law in question to try to get SCOTUS to walk away.

   1

   1. Re that last point: yes, but in a recent case involving the 1st Amendment, Roberts received a slapdown from all 8 other justices when he tried to pull the “it’s moot now” stunt again.

4. Some commentary from lawyer types. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/26/making-sense-of-the-limited-cert-grant-in-nys-rifle-pistol-association-v-corlett/

   1. That is interesting reading. SCOTUS will be considering a significantly different question than is being asked by the Petitioners.

      Some of that might be reticence to make any big leaps one way or the other (because it could go either way); we’ll either win a relatively narrow slice of freedom, or lose a relatively narrow slice of freedom. Recent SCOTUS decisions have mostly answered small questions, and it appears they’ll continue that trend.

      OTOH, having not reviewed the full file myself, I’m not qualified to say whether the case thus far has been asking the narrow CCW-license-only question, and only now asks the big “carry outside the home” question to SCOTUS. It’s possible the re-wording simply re-frames the issue closer to the original case; or it’s possible they’re trying to throw the Petitioners the smallest bone they can away with. (Maybe a bit of both. Since IIRC, the original challenge was to the “good cause” requirement, that’s specific to CCW license applications. So there’s that.)

      The “citizens vs. persons/people” adds a twist, too.

      Some things to watch for when we get the decision.

Comments are closed.