On Wednesday, the Supreme Court appeared poised to rule in favor of gun owners who want to carry a concealed firearm in New York. The law as it currently stands, requires a person to prove a reason they need a concealed firearm.
This reasoning is called proper cause. According to SCOTUSblog, “Courts in New York have defined “proper cause” to require applicants to show a special need to defend themselves, rather than simply wanting to protect themselves or their property.”
Liberal members of the court pushed back on the request in the case to allow unrestricted concealed carry in New York. They insist that certain measures of gun control have precedent in the Supreme Court. They also questioned whether New York’s permitting authority was as stringent as the plaintiff suggests.
Those plaintiffs are two men whose applications for unrestricted concealed carry licenses were denied. Their attorneys have argued that they should have the right to unrestricted concealed carry licenses based on the Second Amendment.
The liberal judges tried to bring up places of concealed carry for reasoning to deny the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh reminded the court that the matter at hand was not the places of concealed carry but rather the constitutionality of the restriction overall.
New York has argued that the reasoning for the law is to protect public safety. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both pushed back on how the state determined the safety of the public based on their statements. Kavanaugh chimed in saying that a person who lives in a high crime area, no matter where it is, may have the desire to defend themselves.
The ruling, in this case, matters for more than just New York. If the law is struck down in New York, it could easily lead to turning down a similar law in California. The LA Times commented about this in a recent article as well.
The Times took it one step further when they said, “The case heard Wednesday and the likely outcome highlight the change in the makeup of the court.” It’s already starting the narrative about the makeup of the court. It’s a practice in the exercise of conditioning, so the mainstream media can start driving the narrative about a need to change the makeup of the court.
The case is expected to receive a ruling sometime next year, which will no doubt place it at the center of the 2022 election for Democrats.
Content syndicated from TheLibertyLoft.com with permission.