On April 26, 2021, the Court granted the petition but rephrased the issue as: “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”
Second Amendment supporters rejoiced while the haters wailed impending doom.
More often than not, the Court relies on the issue as stated by the petitioners. In this case, the Court reformulated the issue to concern concealed-carry licenses and did not mention the alternative of open carry. But the Court’s version was consistent with how New York carry licenses work. It’s a crime to carry openly, and no license exists to do so. The only license to carry that is available authorizes concealed-carry only. So not too much should be read into the Court’s version of the issue.
According to the schedule, the parties and their amici will file briefs this summer, and the case will be heard during the October 2021 term. Oral argument will likely be this fall, while a decision may not be forthcoming until June of 2022—the usual timing of the most-controversial decisions.
People should not be criminalized nor demonized for merely exercising their constitutional rights.
We hope the Supreme Court rejects New York’s unreasonable law and makes clear that constitutional rights, all of them, are enforceable limits on the power of government. People should not be criminalized nor demonized for merely exercising their constitutional rights. Period.
So this is the Bruen thread (used to be Corlett case, and was Beach before that).
The Supreme Court changed the terms of the question on appeal.
Although the plaintiffs asked the Court to rule on a broad question — “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” — the justices announced on Monday that they will only resolve a more narrow question: “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”
The Supreme Court narrowed the question significantly. Remember that in Heller the Supreme Court stated (obiter dictum) that carrying concealed has been upheld as not violating the Second Amendment.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
So what is the significance of the change to the issue presented for appeal, and does it have any relevance to the quote from Heller?
Gotta love the way he reads the balance of public safety into the 2A. I must have read that amendment at least 500 times and never saw it in there. I guess better get my eyes examined then read it again.