Supreme Court will hear a 2nd Amendment case that could gut US gun laws - Vox

Three conservative Associate Justices

added to the Court by Trump and McConnell

will decide whether meaningful gun control can be 

enacted in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has granted a petition for certiorari in an attack on New York's long standing requirement for a permit in order to be able lawfully to carry a concealed weapon.  Samuel Alito has referred to the right to bear arms as a "second tier" right.  But he declared [for a 5-4 court] in McDonald v. Chicago that the right is imposed on the states, so not much hope of a "states rights" ruling from his pen.   NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, Superintendent of the NY State Police could be our Prigg v. Pennsylvania in which the states had to yield to the slave-holder's rights to recover their human property.  The Supreme Court has lost two McDonald dissenters (Stevens and Ginsburg) and replaced them with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.  They will likely invalidate New York and New Jersey's strict handgun controls.  The slaughter will spread rather than abate unless there is surprising restraint. - GWC

Supreme Court will hear a 2nd Amendment case that could gut US gun laws - Vox

By Ian Millhiser

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, a case that could transform the judiciary’s understanding of the Second Amendment and lay waste to many of the nation’s gun laws.

The case involves New York state’s handgun licensing law — a law that has been in place since 1913 — which requires someone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to obtain a license permitting them to do so.

Proper cause can be demonstrated in several ways. Someone who wishes to use a gun for hunting or target practice may obtain a license permitting them to do so, although this type of license can be restricted to only allow the bearer to use their gun for these purposes. People in certain kinds of work may also obtain licenses — a storekeeper might be issued a limited license allowing them to keep a gun in their store for protection, for example, or a bank messenger may be allowed to carry a gun to protect themselves and the money they transport.

But to obtain an unrestricted license to carry, New York courts have established that an applicant must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” So someone might be able to obtain a license because they have a particular fear of their stalker — but someone who merely wants to carry a gun, because of a general belief that it would be useful if they are ever the victim of a violent crime, cannot obtain a license.

The plaintiffs in Corlett include a New York state gun rights group and two New York men who applied for a license to carry a handgun in public and were denied that license. They claim that “law-abiding citizens” have a Second Amendment right to carry a gun in public — and the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, could agree with them.

Indeed, Corlett could potentially dismantle more than a decade of judicial decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, imposing prohibitive limits on lawmakers’ ability to reduce gun violence.

KEEP READING