The Supreme Court Hands Down Major Gun Rights Victory

As predicted, the Supreme Court handed down a momentous opinion in favor of Second Amendment rights today in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In what will likely prove one of the most important decisions in his illustrious career as a conservative jurist, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 majority opinion that brought greater clarity to this and future challenges under the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

This case concerned concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts upheld the New York law, but there were ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” New York wanted to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.

Thomas rejected the two-part analysis used by lower courts and held that the presumption must be in favor of the individual right to possess a handgun in public like other rights in the Bill of Rights. The Court held “consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Accordingly, “because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul immediately declared “Shocking, absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.” The Claude Rain moment aside, it was shocking that Hochul would be shocked. Many of us were predicting a major loss for over a year and New York, as usual, litigated a bad case and made more bad law for gun control advocates.

Gov. Hochul added “This is New York. We don’t back down.” That may be welcomed news for gun rights advocates given the record in cases like this one in reinforcing Second Amendment rights. As previously discussed, New York has proven a fount of cases strengthening gun rights.

Here is the opinion:

164 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Hands Down Major Gun Rights Victory”

  1. I remember when the right yelled “activist judges” and “states rights”. This SCOTUS has shown they are “activist judges” and they are destroying “states rights”.

    1. Does the US Constitution carry in it provisions that limit the laws States can have?

      I know of no one on the Right who says “no” to that.

      What we have often said was “SCOTUS just ignored the US Constitution and substituted the person political desires of the members for the written US Constitution”

      So, FishWings, what part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are you unclear on?

    2. Defending the Constitution is not being an activists. States do not have the right to remove any of our inalienable rights. So the SCOTUS is destroying nothing, just removing infringement.

    3. FishWings — States have lots of rights, but violating the US Constitution isn’t one of them. If you can read, please pick up a copy. If you can’t read — maybe you can find a copy on tape.

      1. Fishy is a dum dum Demmycrat. Repeats talking points like a good dum dum Fishy.

    4. If they are following the constitution, they are not activist, they are constitutionalist.

  2. Very interesting opinions.

    1. Elimination of strict and intermediate scrutiny. Will this get extended into other areas of law? For example, the use of race for various purposes is now supported on the basis of means-end scrutiny — e.g., the alleged compelling state interest in promoting diversity in higher education through racial preferences. Maybe this foreshadows the ending of that practice.

    2. As in McDonald v Chicago, Thomas again discussed the significance for blacks after the Civil War of the right to bear arms in self defence.

    3. Alito’s concurrence also highlights the significance for people in “marginalised communities” of the right to bear arms in self defence. He also discusses more generally the extent of the harms avoided through self defence with firearms.

    1. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul immediately declared “Shocking, absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.”




    2. I believe “strict scrutiny” applies to application and interpretation of restrictions of constitutional rights, rather than something applied further than that. All this ruling did was make clear that “strict scrutiny” applies to 2nd amendment cases too.

  3. The way that cities were trying to get around this expecting ruling on concealed carry is by using a LONG list of “sensitive places” where concealed carry is disallowed. The ruling does not settle the question of sensitive places but clearly states that a whole city or town cannot be a sensitive place simply because it is crowded.

    In Colorado, where cities and towns can now pass their own firearms restrictions, Superior and Lafayette Colorado have effectively banned concealed carry recently by disallowing concealed carry on ALL city property, which includes city buildings, parks, trails, parking lots, and city “rights-of-way.” Boulder and Lousiville, Colorado exempted rights-of-way, but disallowed carry in a long list of both public and private locations (such as grocery stores, churches, etc.) unless the owners SPECIFICALLY notify the public that concealed carry is allowed. In Solomon v. Cook County Board of Commissioners, the court ruled that concealed carry could NOT be prohibited inthe Cook County Forest Preserves in Illinois – including parks, trails, etc. (US Dist. Ct. N.D. Illinois, E. Div, 2021, Case No. 17-cv-6144).

    Effectively now in Lafayette and Superior, Colorado it is impossible to carry concealed “in public.” The only exception being in your “vehicle or other conveyance.” But since a sidewalk is a city-owned right-of-way, you cannot get out of your car and walk down the sidewalk to your home, business, or to a store. We will have to see if they actually pay attention to this Supreme Court Ruling and change that, or if they have to be sued also.

    The long list of concealed and open carry restrictions and other firearms restrictions was recently given to Colorado cities by the Everytown/Moms Demand Action group, funded by Bloomberg. They then conspired with city council members in Denver, Edgewater, Louisville, Lafayette, Longmont and other cities and towns to ram through these city ordinances with little debate. The leftist legislature made this possible by repealing the state preemption law on firearms last year.

    1. I predict that the Colorado laws will be thrown out. The opinion discussed overly broad prohibitions.

  4. The question of whether to carry a weapon or not would be mute if we gave police the power and support they need to protect Americans. As long as we allow the cretins to dictate police policy, blame police for the actions of the criminals and erect statues of criminals we’ll have a need to carry weapons.

    1. Though I can’t disagree with your sentiment, it is unreasonable to expect police to protect you. That onus falls upon you and you alone. The only real job the police have is to investigate crimes after they occur, and the arrest the perps for prosecution.

      FWIW the word is “moot”, not “mute”.

      1. OK “moot” but you get the point. I have a carry permit but quite frankly rarely carry, I have it because I can as a legal law abiding American. I’m not against any Americans ability to own or carry a weapon legally if they feel the need, it’s a constitutional right and I love the constitution just as is! I’ve seen enough deaths by firearms to suit me. No the police are not supposed to just take reports after the fact. If allowed to perform their jobs as they have in the past maybe, maybe we’ll all be a bit safer and there will be no after the fact. The police have been demonized by the Democrats and their Marxist allies to a point where the men and women in uniform are damned if they do or do not.

    2. There is no way to have the police arrive, reliably, at the time they are needed, so the question of whether to carry a weapon or not is not mute.

    3. Nope. As Uvalde has shown us, when seconds count, the police are not only minutes away, but when they arrive they will be sitting in the hallway with assault weapons and ballistic shields for 58 minutes doing nothing other than disarming parents trying to protect their children. As much as you might want to believe it, we cannot entrust our right of self defense to the authorities. Not only that, but also though out history it is often times the authorities from whom you need to exercise the right of self defense.

    4. “As long as we allow the cretins to dictate police policy”

      Also stop hiring cretins for police departments. Uvalde.

    5. Margaret, Andrew Sullivan has a quote for you

      Andrew Sullivan
      Many of us voted for Biden as a competent moderate. Turns out he’s more like an incompetent extremist.

    6. Margot Ballhere: How long do you think it would take for an intruder to get from the door to your bedroom? No cop can respond that fast.

      1. giocon1 – How long do you think he would take to get into my bedroom if he was still in the can from his first attempt? Broken Windows Policing, Stop and Frisk and Pro Active Policing Work. Keep your weapons as many and what type you wish, carry legally all you want BUT use caution when you THINK you have the right to brandish, aim and discharge that weapon. Trust me on that.

        1. The standard isn’t complicated. If you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury, you can use a firearm to defend yourself and others nearby in similar danger. “Reasonable” is judged by asking whether the attacker had the ability and opportunity to inflict imminent death or injury, and whether the defender was in jeopardy. These are usually very straightforward issues.

      2. The average handgun fight is within 10 feet and lasts under 10 seconds. I’ll take care of my own, thank you very much.

        1. When people ask me what my favorite home defense gun is, I reply: “Which room?” I’d almost feel sorry for the idiot(s) who decide to invade our place.

  5. How ironic.

    One of the few people in America who can grasp the dominion of the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, the fact that Justices swear an oath to support the Constitution, and the fact that Americans enjoy the absolute right to keep and bear arms is an African.

    The litmus test for the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas is whether he can grasp that the Constitution does not prohibit secession, that secession was/is absolutely constitutional, and whether Abraham Lincoln had authority to deny secession to southern states.

    Lincoln’s entire fallacy relied on the phantom, non-existent unconstitutionality of secession.

    Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional and remains illegitimate to this day.

    The Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court on abortion and the 2nd Amendment.

    The Supreme Court must reverse Lincoln and return America to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution – the free America of the Founders and Framers – the American restricted-vote REPUBLIC of Ben Franklin.

      1. Point taken. I stand corrected. My wife was pestering me about something or other.

        The Supreme Court reversed the “trend” of the dreams of liberals regarding the 2nd Amendment.

        Everything starts with a dream.

        I’m dreaming of the renaissance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and free America.

    1. Secession is above the Supreme Court’s pay grade. It was decided by other means. Grow up, child.

  6. “New York Gov. Kathy Hochul immediately declared “Shocking, absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.” ”
    Properly translated:
    “I am shocked that they took away our right to take away your rights”

    1. they have taken away our right

      Who is “they” she is talking about? Governments have powers. People have rights the govt cannot infringe

      1. It gives a good look into the leftist mindset doesn’t it. WE (the state) have all the rights and you (the people) only have the rights that WE decide WE will allow when it doesn’t interfere with OUR interests.

  7. This is an important victory, particularly how SCOTUS dispensed with the ludicrous “two-step” test. However, the liberal courts of appeal will just shift their intellectual dishonest arguments to a different part of the battlefield. For example, in Duncan v. Bonta, with a petition currently pending before SCOTUS, concerning magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, the regulation was ruled unconstitutional years ago at the trial court level and ruled unconstitutional again by the first 9th Circuit panel. However, en banc, the entire 9th Circuit reversed. It applied the “two step” test. It “presumed without deciding” that the regulation impinged the Second Amendment, then went straight to the second step where, of course, they decided that the government’s interest in the regulation outweighed the individuals right to bear arms. Now that that test has been thrown out, SCOTUS will probably remand the case back to the 9th Circuit for rehearing consistent with the new decision. BUT I WILL BET YOU DOLLARS TO DOUGHNUTS that upon rehearing the liberal justices will reverse its prior presumption, give renewed focus to the historical arguments, find that the long history of capacity limitations (that doesn’t exist) justifies the newly imposed regulations. It is just how they roll… The unconstitutional regulation will get a few more years of life, and may even become the law of the land if SCOTUS does not want to get into the weeds and take up another gun case so soon.

  8. Many years ago I did a deep dive on the 2nd Amendment and came to these conclusions:

    a) The 2nd Amendment is the “Middle Ground”, and the middle ground is a desirable objective because it has a good chance of being a “stable” solution (i.e., the polar opposite boundary of ‘no citizen can own a gun’ is not the 2nd Amendment, it is ‘all citizens must own a gun’).

    b) It is illogical to include ‘People’ in the amendment, if the amendment does not apply to ‘People’ (e.g., none of the other amendments explicitly include a party that is not covered by the amendment).

    c) It is illogical to conclude in this amendment the word “right” does not apply to the party explicitly noted, when the word “right” does apply to the party explicitly noted in the other amendments. (e.g., 7 other amendments explicitly define a party that is covered by the amendment, none of the other amendments have this logic contradiction).

    1. d) None of the other 9 Amendments refers to a group, government, or collective Right. By what logic can one infer the 2nd does?

  9. An in more good news, the Jan. 6th Kangaroo Hearings are suspended indefinitely! People don’t care about Jan 6th so why all the marketing the Dims must be wondering? Ever see a more vapid, incompetent bunch of leftist fools? Nope. Kinsinger last seen weeping in his chair; Cheney’s heading to Wyoming to bolster her 28% approval rating.

    1. Mespo727272,
      I read the lack of viewership, their own party members not tuning in or supporting the committee, lack of real “smoking gun” evidence, is the reason they have postponed the meetings.
      Whatever happened to the bombshell evidence Schiff has?

      Also, Americans are more focused on things like inflation, food insecurity, prices at the pump. You know, real problems that they are facing today. Possible recession too.

      1. They claim “new” evidence. Schifty’s “bombshell” is likely the same one he had about Russian “collusion”: a dud.

        1. Mespo727272,
          “I have talked with two separate Democratic members of Congress in the last couple of weeks about January 6th…Both of them have said, offhandedly, ‘Nobody gives a bleep about January 6th,’” Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan told Chuck Todd on MSNBC.”
          June 22, 2022

      2. Here’s where your choice of news media does you wrong.

        Ratings went down on Fox for the hearings they showed, not on other networks. Just means that, in addition to your status as a minority voting bloc, you’re cooked. Beyond help.

        The hearings have been devastating for trumpy bear. That’s why he’s freaking out so much about McCarthy and Mitch playing themselves with the formation of the Committee.

        Or maybe they willingly backed out to let trump hang.

    2. There’s a hearing a few minutes, Big Mess.

      See, the hearings don’t have to motivate you. You’re a flat earther beyond help. They have to motivate us. There’s more of us than you. You lost 81-74 last time we took it to the playground.

    3. “ An in more good news, the Jan. 6th Kangaroo Hearings are suspended indefinitely! ”

      No that’s not what they are doing. They are delaying the hearings due to new evidence being brought forth. Your wishful thinking is getting the better of you.

      1. Maybe they should can the hearings completely. On video Alan Dershowitz used the term McCarthyism regarding Jan 6, while John Solomon has published a bunch of lies that came out from the J6 hearing because the testimony is overstated, and there is no counterbalance of an opposition.

        Both reports are quite interesting.

        By the way Svelaz, not every anonymous is me. You are like the J6 committee attributing me things that aren’t mine. However, mostly I agree with those anonymous persons, so it is OK. I just wish they would be a bit more blunt to help you understand the point that you aren’t the brightest crayon in the box, and crayons don’t have brains.

        1. I think that the J6 hearings were a bust – a boon to republicans.

          They appear to have energized more people on the right than the left.

          Further they have legitimized the same conduct by republicans in power.

          Trump asked for an got a committee to look at election reform in 2017. The democrats appointed boycotted the committee so nothing happened. In 2023 – republicans can form an election intergrity committee and restrict it to democrats who actually care about voter fraud – if there are any.

          There were many problems with the J6 hearings, but the biggest was the same as the flaw in faux impeachment One and Deu.

          Political disagreement is not justification for these. Even being wrong is not. A crime is an action that is unconstitutional or lawless,
          not merely one you do not like, or think is wrong.

          Aside from the few people who were actually violent, the remedy for the rest of J6 lies with VOTERS not congress or DOJ.

          I would note I recently heard that the Capitals 20Ton doors were opened on J6 and that can only be done from the inside.

          I have argued repeatedly and forcefully that it was unconstitutional for congress to close the capital with congress in session.

          But there is building evidence that the Capital was at best only closed SOME places.

          All these parading and tresspass charges need to go away.

          Eastman would not have committed a crime – even if his legal and constitutional advice to Trump was WRONG.

          No lawyers advice is criminal just because it is wrong.

          Democrats keep ranting about Trump trying to overturn the election. They may not like that – but so long as he does not violate the law or the constitution – he may seek to do exactly that, as democrats have done unsuccessfully for decades.

          Nor are most voters stupid – atleast those not on the left. Most understand that just because they do not like what someone else does, or argues, does not make that a crime.

          If being wrong was a crime many left posters here would be doing life.

    4. They were nothing more than revenge for the Benghazi hearings, just as the stupid Trump impeachments were nothing more than revengue for the stupid Clinton impeachment.

  10. There will be more gun deaths. Having a gun strapped to you changes your brain. Suddenly you are tougher, more macho, won’t take any crap from that dude over there.

    I still want to know how you tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy? Is it a good guy outside a bank? A bad guy? Is his hat white or black? does it matter?

    We live in a society with other people. There will be more gun deaths. Why? I guess to prove how macho you are.

    Sad, silly macho trumpists.

    1. BT:

      Guns are used AT LEAST a half a million times in self-defense every year. The people who need ’em can tell the good guys from the bad guys even if you can’t, deary. And don’t fret so publicly, it’s unmanly.

      1. I recall an incident in the past few months were a bad guy with a gun started shooting while in the street. A good guy with a gun saw this unfold, pulled out his gun, killed the bad guy. Great, all is well, good guy with gun saves the world from bad guy with gun (ever notice how it is almost always a “guy”). Then, the police show up, sees a guy standing with a gun over a guy laying in the street, the police promptly shoot the good guy with a gun dead.

        I still want to know how to tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy. And perhaps more importantly, how to do the police tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun? I can 100% guarantee that when the police show up and see a black guy with a gun, he will be shot, no need to even ask.

        Mark my words, this WILL result in more gun deaths, and many of those killed will be innocent, many will be two macho guys with a gun that get into an argument over a piece of pizza. Good riddance to them.

        1. “Mark my words, this WILL result in more gun deaths, and many of those killed will be innocent, many will be two macho guys with a gun that get into an argument over a piece of pizza. Good riddance to them.”
          You really hate “guys” don’t you. Sorry, but males of species won’t change to fit your normative notions of masculinity.

        2. Baby,

          “I recall an incident in the past few months…”

          This incident took place only in your fevered baby imagination. If such an incident took place in the past few months it would have been plastered all over the MSM as a means to defeat the “good guy with a gun” argument.

          This scenario is part of many gun training courses, both directly and indirectly, and the lesson that is taught is this; Always comply with instructions from law enforcement and NEVER brandish a firearm in the presence of law enforcement or YOU WILL BE SHOT.

          If you can’t figure this out then you shouldn’t be carrying a gun.

    2. “There will be more gun deaths. Having a gun strapped to you changes your brain. Suddenly you are tougher, more macho, won’t take any crap from that dude over there.”

      That happens with your type. Normal people that carry and control themselves aren’t like you.

    3. Or, maybe more civilized, once the new normal has bubbled down to the societal expectations.
      Ala the old chestnut: “An Armed Society, is a Polite Society”

    4. Have you ever held a CCW?
      Have you ever carried in a major city with a high crime rate?
      Change you brain? No. Changes your perspective that you, as a responsible, law abiding citizen and have a better understanding of CCW laws, the use of force, are more likely to be aware of your surroundings and to act if the occasion arises.
      There are very specific instances where it is justifiable to use a weapon in self-defense that is trained in CCW classes.

      1. Have you ever held a CCW?
        Have you ever carried in a major city with a high crime rate?
        Change you brain?

        Statistics show CCW holders are far more safe and law abiding than retired LEO that are still allowed to carry.

    5. BabyTrump: You clearly have some psychological problems over the issue of “macho.” As a 75 year-old woman who owns a gun for home protection — because the cops would never arrive in time if there was an intruder — I would like you to think a little deeper on this issue. Try to get past your neurosis and understand that people own guns for different reasons. They’re not all macho and they’re not all “trumpists.” But your simplistic mentality is part of the problem because it appeals to the most ignorant among us and clogs up the courts with unconstitutional cases.

    6. Other way around. I carry daily, and among other things it extinguished the last vestiges of road rage, and in general has made me less argumentative in person. As for how to tell good from bad, those of us who aren’t “progressives” rarely have that problem. LOL

  11. Lefties are typically two faced about guns.

    Lefties want to restrict other people’s Second Amendment rights, but see nothing wrong with their having guns.

    Had two Lefties (strong supporters of gun control) ask to come to my range to practice (they don’t like mixing with rednecks at public ranges).


    1. I should invest in duct tape, because that’s the only thing that going to contain leftist heads from exploding with upcoming decisions.

      1. currentsitguy……….considering the size of a Leftist brain, you’ll need only a small roll of tape for the whole lot of ’em.

  12. So many of these Court decisions that infuriate opponents can be addressed by state legislatures. Want to restrict concealed carry? Have the legislature list the specific attributes which will deny a concealed carry permit, and make them reasonable. Want the right to an abortion? Pass a law granting that right. Want no tax money to go to religious schools? Don’t give money to any private schools.

    This isn’t hard. It’s just hard if you expect the Court to give you what your legislature should be giving you.

  13. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul immediately declared “Shocking, absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.”
    What’s shocking is the NY tyrant here doesn’t realize “restrictions” aren’t the default position in America; “liberty” is. “Dems” must be short for “Demented.” God it’s good to see Kathy distraught.

    1. I’m praying that us New Yorkers who “don’t back down.” get to see her more distraught in november.

    2. Mespo– many, many years ago Austin was considering a smoking ban. A local, morning radio host named Sammy Allred, a country singer/ comedian with an attitude, predicted that the smoking ordinance would be the camel’s nose under the tent. Sure enough, after smoking in public places was outlawed, the liberals in the Austin city government (and New York, Portland, Chicago, etc., etc.) seemingly spent their days and nights looking for things to control and in the intervening years, that control has extended to nearly everything, even to the pronouns we are allowed to speak. Hochul and her liberal fellow travelers are perfectly comfortable in a society filled with rules that limit or dictate what us ordinary people can or must do– so long as they do not actually have to obey them. If she was serious about condemning the right to carry, she would defund the armed escort that travels with her every place she goes. Or is protecting her life just more important than the rest of us?

  14. The Second Amendment was about the Right To Arm Bears. Not bear arms.

    1. Maybe it was about the right of hunters to hunt bears and keep the bears’ arms as trophies. In colonial times the Brits were probably going from house to house and removing the bear arms hunters had hung above the fireplace.

  15. The Supreme Court justices crave attention. Why else do they keep the most politically charged opinions for last?

    1. I think it’s so they can get the hell out of Dodge for their own safety afterward considering their lives are in serious jeopardy considering the denial of protection from and the arrest of those illegally protesting in front of their homes.

  16. Good news for gun rights advocates, freedom and liberty!

    The professor’s point about how NY strengthens gun rights is rather amusing.

  17. Such a good call here. The Second Amendment is just as much a bedock principle as the First Amednment. In fact, the Second guarantees the rest of them. To misquote Mao: “All p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶ freedom grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

  18. Please Kathy, file another suit so we can sweep away even more Unconstitutional restrictions on Inherent Rights.

Comments are closed.