SCOTUS and the Second Amendment

[Bobref]

SCOTUS has agreed to hear what may become the first major gun control case in over a decade: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. Legal scholars are anxiously awaiting a look inside the Court’s new conservative majority, while the Biden Administration continues to look for ways to get around the Court’s rulings in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Given the interest — and the divergence of opinions on the GID and elsewhere — I created this thread to track the case.  So, we begin by describing the current state of the law, and then go on to set out what Corlett is about.

In the Heller case, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Two years later, in McDonald, the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantees described in Heller applied not just to federal jurisdictions, like D.C., but also to state and local governments, like Chicago, through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 In Corlett, the Court will examine a New York law that allows a concealed carry permit only upon a showing of “an actual and articulable need to do so.” The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, reasoning that a generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one's person and property does not constitute 'proper cause.'" In other words, if you hope to legally carry a handgun in New York, basic self-defense is not a good enough reason. Since the ruling in Heller, 13 yrs. ago, in which the majority relied on “traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” the controversy focuses on whether the 2nd Amendment covers other purposes outside the home, or whether that’s where the dividing line exists. 

Some obvious questions that arise are “What if I need to carry for business purposes, e.g., I make the night deposit at the bank after closing up?” Or, “I travel to work, passing through a high crime area, and don’t feel safe.” Or how about just “If I’m taking in a movie with my wife and some nut opens up in the theater, I want to be able to do something about it.”

It’ll be fun watching this case develop, and listening to the zealotry on both sides of the issue, as we move toward a decision.

[DanteEstonia]

14 minutes ago, Bobref said:

while the Biden Administration continues to look for ways to get around the Court’s rulings in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010)

13-seat SCOTUS.