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: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
164 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Hands Down Major Gun Rights Victory”
We are watching Democrats and their Stasi-like, Gestapo, Secret Police, formerly known as the DOJ and FBI, treat one side VERY differently under THEIR unjust one-sided injustice system.
When will federal agents show up to say, someone like Andrew Gillum’s house before 7am and force him to go outside with no pants on while an “electronic sniffing dog,” and federal agents rummage through his house and and seize all of his electronic devices. Did that happen to Gillum? Or ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT? Anyone know?
The level of rage and anger in this country as we witness what the Democrats are doing is reaching boiling point. This cannot continue. And it will not continue. Too many people are VERY aware of what is going on.
“Federal investigators on Wednesday conducted a search of the home of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, people briefed on the matter tell CNN.
Clark is the former DOJ lawyer who former President Donald Trump sought to install as attorney general in the days before the January 6 Capitol riot as top officials refused to go along with his vote fraud claims.
It wasn’t clear what investigators were seeking at Clark’s home, but the raid was part of the Justice Department’s sweeping investigation into the effort to overturn the 2020 elections, according to sources familiar with the matter.”
One little gem in Clarence Thomas’s opinion: he cited Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott for the proposition that if blacks were citizens they would have the right to bear arms. Even Taney recognised the right, he said, which was part of Taney’s rationale for holding that blacks could not be citizens. Very mischievous.
I missed that. Yes unarmingly sneaky.
Basically Thomas is using the current BLM perspective of racial rights to justify the right to bear arms for all American citizens — and that to argue otherwise is raaaciiist.
PLEASE, JUSTICE THOMAS, ANSWER THE QUESTION, TAKE THE TEST OF YOUR TRUE “CONSERVATISM.”
June 23, 2022 at 1:27 PM
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 trend of the dreams of liberals on 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.
The Supreme Court in Texas v White in 1869 held that States do not have a right to secede.
The Supreme Court in 1973 decided abortion was a right, and that was wrong, you ——- —-!
And some idiot put up a “memorial” to an insane, no-mandate un-president, tyrannical despot who nullified the Constitution, commenced the incremental implementation of communism in America, and killed, ultimately, 1 million Americans.
If I said he lost his head, would I be wrong?
If you ever wondered if the Democrats were committing political suicide by embracing the Green New Deal socialist takeover of America, this report by Mollie Hemingway flips that notion. They aren’t committing party suicide, they are committing homicide on our constitutional republic.
Mobilizing voters is always a political act. Choosing which groups to target for Get Out The Vote efforts is one of the most important activities done by political campaigns. Federal agencies that interact with the public by doling out benefits can easily pressure recipients to vote for particular candidates and positions. Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, which bans bureaucrats and bureaucracies from being involved in election activities after Democrats used Works Progress Administration programs and personnel for partisan political advantage.
Executive Order 14019 ignores that the Constitution does not give the executive branch authority over elections. That power is reserved for the states, with a smaller role for Congress. With H.R. 1 and other Democrat Party efforts to grab more control over elections have thus far failed, Congress hasn’t authorized such an expansion.
A Farewell to Arms control
To Have and Have Not!
Many States & Okla passed Constitutional Carry a few years back. I think there’s been enough years of data to start to see the crime stats even though Biden/Dims/Rino’s policies since Jan 20/2021 likely have caused more crime.
It’s a bout time.
As I know from relatives the survied combat & wars, the great thing about America & War every one gets a Gun & a Vote.
I couldn’t believe today there was someone here that seemed to believed those of his race were not responsible enough to own a weapon or Freedom.
Yes, there may be a few deaths at frist in Blue State Crapholes for a few months, but dishonest players will soon get the message that it’s not so easy the live of crime now the Victims are not the state’s Slaves & now they are Armed!
Joe Biden to Clarence Thomas 1991: welcome to the high tech lynching of a black man
Clarence Thomas to Joe Biden 2022: welcome to the virtual lynching of a white man. Warm Regards to Anita
It does look like a bit of payback doesn’t it 🙂
To my friends on the blog. I’m all in on second amendment rights and your ability to file for and obtain legally a CCW. I think you should own whatever caliber, automatic or single shot you want. I know fire fights take 10 seconds within 10’, police can’t arrive fast enough, I’ll protect my own. I got it.
Remember one thing Your responsible for every round you fire. Fire one round or a few, miss any hit an innocent bystander Your responsible. Fire a round inside Your home miss, it goes through Your home into your neighbors home Your responsible.
Get training, get to your local gun room and get the correct round for SD. There’s a difference firing at silhouette targets and firing at assailants and your adrenaline is running high. I’m not sure frangible ammo will stop going through? When incident’s like this occur it hurts all responsible weapon owners. So use caution, not looking for an argument with any of you!
“Remember one thing Your responsible for every round you fire. Fire one round or a few, miss any hit an innocent bystander Your responsible. Fire a round inside Your home miss, it goes through Your home into your neighbors home Your responsible.”
Not really. If you act responsibly in firing at your local hood. That is say, try to hit him alone, I doubt most jurors would care about a broken window. If you hit a bystander, your right to live rightfully trumps their right to stand on the street corner gawking. I’ll take the trial by 12 over the six pallbearers.
I certainly hope that you will not be attacked for explaining common sense considerations for safely handling a firearm during a self defense situation. Having said that, what is “common sense” for those having proper gun training may not be obvious to the novice gun owner or to someone who has never owned a gun.
Your point about shooting through the walls of a residence is particularly relevant because many people have no idea about the ability of a bullet to penetrate residential sheet rock and exterior siding. It is a fallacy, created by TV/Movies, that people can have a massive gunfight inside an apartment or a house with the interior sheetrock walls acting like bullet-proof barriers that provide cover from gunfire and that prevent bullets from penetrating into adjacent apartments or houses.
Very few things are further from the truth. Even the “lowly” .22LR is capable of passing through, at a minimum, a single sheetrock wall and a 9mm, a very popular SD round, is capable of passing through three or more sheetrock walls while still possessing enough energy to “blow the lungs out of (!)* any person that is hit on the other side.
The bottom line is that there are certainly people who favor gun ownership and who are very proficient in the proper handling of firearms who also, by virtue of their living arrangements, recognize that they cannot safely employ a firearm in defense of their home.
I have no criticism for people in this situation. Instead, I respect the fact that they have common sense and that they are willing to sacrifice a bit of their own personal safety out of a proper deference to the safety of others.
Darren had some sage advice, if one can avoid the confrontation before the trouble.
I learned some of that from foreclosing & enforcing contracts.
Aside from that the Kyle Rittenhouse/Kenosha case is very interesting to others & I.
Klye R was young & Gullible, but we now know Biden/Pelosi & their Criminal Commie Dims aka Antifa/BLM were out attempting to Burn/Loot/Murder whom ever the could, like they did in so many US cities.
In Kenosha we know from the Trial the FBI was filming everything with a Drones for the 1st 2 days & the 3rd so if they would have made arrest then there would have been no need for Klye & other Biz Leaders/people to have been there on the 3rd day.
But what I thought about Kenosha was Kyle’s discipline, all the way through & most all of it was captured on video.
Under attack, even being hit in the head, that could have killed, he only fired just enough shots to kill those attempting to murder. Then it turns out a couple were convicted Pedos.
Recall Klye was just 17 yrs old.
Most of us would having trouble saving yourselves under similar circumstances.
But what is some young gal to do in NYNY or anywhere America, let the criminal have their way, or the gal pulls the 38 pistol her boyfriend or husband gave her & empty it into the b*astard after the attack is over?
You’re responsible for your apostrophes, idiot.
There is strong disagreement among respected legal scholars (which never has, and never will, describe Clarence Thomas) about the Second Amendment allowing anything other than states to form “well-regulated” militias. So if state militias (i.e., the National Guard) can not only be “regulated” but “well regulated”, why can’t possession and carrying of a lethal weapon be regulated by the state? Turley says: “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.” What about the rights of abortion, contraception, marriage equality and consensual sex between consenting adults also recognized as protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (of the Bill of Rights), which the radical right wingers on the SCOTUS are about to gut? Interestingly, the Heller decision came down in 2008, so it can hardly be descirbed as any Constitutional right of long-standing, which is one of Alito’s arguments. The right to abortion prior to the age of fetal viability has been Constitutionally protected for almost 50 years; that is, until Trump cheated his way into office and McConnell denied Obama the right to a SCOTUS pick. The hypocrisy is so stinking obvious here. Mayor Hochul is right: the right-wing radicals on the SCOTUS will have blood on their hands. People will die, and it will be their fault.
You’re arguing over settled law. Cry all you want. That argument lost and lost big. It’s a personal right based on history, placement and now law. There’s a name for people who keep whining in opposition after something is certain. It’s called denial and it’s a bad look.
Adjuration of the Framers:
Americans MUST NECESSARILY be fully prepared to join the MILITIA of their choice to effect the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, to that end, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, sufficient to the task of engaging a standing army loyal to oppressive tyrants, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Neither the words abortion nor contraception appear in the Constitution.
“Neither the words abortion nor contraception appear in the Constitution.”
Nor do the words computer, nap, or picnic.
Be careful what you ask for.
You are a lazy, stupid “progressive” who never bothered to look up the meaning of “well-regulated” when Amendment II was written. See, that would require work and a triple-digit I.Q., and you are unfamiliar with the first and lack the second. You can cry now, poor thing. LOL
Just say it: Clarence Thomas is the GOAT.
Alito’s complete and total destruction of Breyer’s lame dissent was also magnificent.
Best day in years for liberty.
All 2A supporters need to thank NY for doing what liberals always do…go too far. The Hochuls of the world want to control all of us and thankfully we had a Court with an idea that the Constitution actually matters.
If you want to see insanity just look at Chicago…
McDonald forced the city to allow ownership of handguns.
King Daley the second went out and created an onerous and relatively expensive permitting process.
(There are no gun stores / ranges within city limits.)
When Judge Sullivan ruled that the state must create a CCW permit law, else face constitutional carry, the state rushed into creating a law and this forced City of Chicago to do away with their permitting process. (State took over all handgun ordinances.)
When they passed the handgun ordinance… the cities (especially Chicago) made it difficult to traverse the city and carry a concealed gun. Stores could put up no guns allowed signs. Restaurants that made up more than 50% of their revenue thru liquor sales had to put the signs up. Those that didn’t… if they wanted to keep their liquor / alcohol licenses had to post the signs too.
The city then tried to ban guns from people walking thru parks or along sidewalks that could be considered ‘gun free zones’.
Condo lawyers tried to sneak ‘gun free’ provisions into their HOA client’s docs during a legal review process.
(We had one of the more prominent firms in Chicago try this…)
While I pointed out how it would be an instant lawsuit and that they would lose… it was dropped from our condo’s rules. However… it wouldn’t surprise me if they did do this elsewhere.
So yes… stupid people will still do stupid things.
In my opinion, if the Court had NOT reached this decision, then another issue would need to be taken up: Do the police (by way of government) have an absolute duty to protect any citizen within their jurisdiction?
Since that has never been the case, then it only makes sense that the Court rely upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right, that is worthy of its enshrinement in our Constitution.
I’ll even politicize this issue by noting that it is the same group of people who don’t believe in the people’s right to keep and bear arms were the same group of people arguing for the defunding f the police just two short years ago.
I’ll even politicize this issue by noting that it is the same group of people who don’t believe in the people’s right to keep and bear arms were the same group of people arguing for the defunding f the police just two short years ago.
The CDC has been politicizing the issue egregiously. Once respected medical journals have thrown the onus onto the backs of physicians to “do something”. That has gone over as well as an STD in a young teenager. the CDC’s most recent MMWR has tied gun violence to COVID and poverty, insulting both poor people and our collective intelligence. Here are the important data points that would not surprise my hero, Democrat Daniel Moynihan, when he wrote his important paper on the collapse of the black family.
Changes in Firearm Homicide and Suicide Rates — United States, 2019–2020
By race and ethnicity, the highest rates and increases occurred among Black (19.0 to 26.6) and AI/AN populations (6.4 to 8.1). Rates increased across all U.S. Census divisions (relative changes ranged from 24.6% [South Atlantic] to 51.0% [Middle Atlantic]) and across all levels of urbaniza-tion (28.5% [nonmetropolitan] to 36.9% [large metropolitan]).
The largest increases in firearm homicide rates were among Black males aged 10–24 (54.9 to 77.3) and 25–44 years (66.5 to 90.6) and among AI/AN males aged 25–44 years (18.9 to 28.7). Among females, the highest rates and largest increases were among those who were Black, aged 10–24 (6.4 to 9.1) and 25–44 years (6.9 to 10.2).
@FishWings, @Greg the Class Traitor…
Ok… not to jump into the middle of a mildly weird conversation…
The only time SCOTUS gets engaged in ‘states rights’ cases is when the state passes a law which infringes upon constitutional rights or is not in alignment w federal law.
In this case… you have 8 states or so that contain the phrase ‘may issue’ in their CCW permitting law(s).
There used to be more, but over time, many states have modified their laws because they saw this as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. NY State was not one of them.
When the state uses the law to deny the right of a US citizen, SCOTUS will step in.
Here, the ‘may issue’ was a way to confer the right of carrying a concealed weapon, while at the same time, limiting it to only the wealthy and politically connected.
What this does is tell NY State and the other states which do not have the words “Shall issue” need to modify their CCW laws.
Nothing brings out Magat terror like the misguided understanding of the 2nd amendment.
We will most likely see left wing terror once the Court upends Roe because we see left wing terror anytime they don’t like something. See ANTIFA and BLM and the “summer of love”. The left is the violent side, the right rioted once 18 months ago and hey are still “investigating”.
I think you need to remember that our constitutional rights are not absolute.
That there are reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon us.
When you talk about the 2nd Amendment…
You have the National Firearms Act (NFA) which has been upheld by SCOTUS in previous challenges along w being modified over the years and upheld by the courts.
And yes, I’m pro 2A.
Ian Michael Gumby: I would not call those reasonable restrictions “rights.” They would have to pass through the legislative process and would be subjected to law. Hochul’s use of “right to restrict” is just Democratic blather.
“I think you need to remember that our constitutional rights are not absolute.”
Yes they are!
The problem with that view (which is often used as a rationalization to usurp rights) is that it is based on a misunderstanding of “absolute.” It does not mean: shorn of any context. “Absolute” means within a particular context.
Brewer’s dissent was frivolous. Rather than addressing the constitutional issue he put out a bunch of political blather.
“our right to have reasonable restrictions”? Ummm…can someone please point to where that “right” exists in the Constitution?
giocon1………….Yes, it’s right behind the box of Nut-Thins.
Under the First Amendment, reasonable regulation of the time, place and manner of protected speech is permitted. The same is true of guns, which is what permits the prohibition of guns in “sensitive places.” It’s also what permits the licensing requirements of the 43 states that have “shall issue” public carry laws.
20 states are permitless. 23 states require permits on a “shall issue” basis. The ruling will require the remaining 7 states + D.C. to either go permitless or to go “shall issue.”
“Ummm…can someone please point to where that “right” exists in the Constitution?”
It’s right after the section on the right to own a musket.
Yes, and the first amendment doesn’t cover printing presses that are anything other than manual, or movies, television, or electronic communications of any kind. Not mentioned.
Let’s see how fast Red States will want to change the law when Black men in camo and body armor start marching in the streets and State Capitals.
Why should they? Black men are more conservative than lots of “educated” white folk.
Blacks make up the largest demographic group that commits mass shootings
Mass Shootings 2021
Every person convicted, charged or wanted in connection with the shooting of 4+ people or who died before they could be charged  
410 of 638 (64%) mass shootings in 2021 have no known suspect
Why would I care about someone exercising their Constitutional Rights? It would make me smile to see that.
It’s one thing to BS people, it’s another thing entirely to believe your own BS.
When it comes to black men in camo and holding black rifles are marching in our streets I have two different points of view. First as a white guy this is a little unnerving. Second if I can step back and just be objective, I think they are free men. So who wants to challenge them and take their rights away.
If Black men were in the streets in a rally for their 2ndA rights, I would cheer them on.
I seem to recall a Black man, with an AR15 at a pro-2ndA right rally in VA.
I would shake his hand and offer to buy him a beverage of his choice.
What do you have against Black men in camo and body armor marching in the streets and State Capitals? What other rights are you afraid Black men will want to defend for themselves?
Fishy, it is the Democrats who are the racists, silly. Open your dam eyes.
In the big gun boom of 2020-22, blacks (13% of the population) have been one-third of the legal gun buyers. You are a “progressive” white racist.
We really need to honor Gov Hochul’s “right to restrictions!” That’s a new one.
A good time to note the good Profs opinion, New York, passing and enforcing unconstitutional 2cnd ammendment laws, has done more to advance gun rights than the NRA.
Leftist have no clue about cause and effect.