BELLEVUE, WA – Following Wednesday morning’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Second Amendment Foundation predicts a victory for the right-to-carry a firearm in public for personal protection.
“Based on questions from the Supreme Court Justices,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “I’m confident we’re going to win either on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote.”
He said suggestions from New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood and Deputy Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher with the U.S. Justice Department—both defending New York’s restrictive “may issue” carry law—that the case be remanded back to the lower courts smacks of an attempted stall.
“I think at that point the anti-gun rights justices as well as the attorneys for New York recognized they are not going to win,” Gottlieb observed, “and they were trying to forestall an unfavorable ruling. During the oral arguments several justices affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at the front door.”
“This important Supreme Court case,” he added, “was only made possible by SAF’s 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.”
SEE ALSO: Virginia Gun Owners Stun Dems, Help Elect GOP Governor for First Time Since 2009
Presenting the oral argument for the plaintiffs, attorney Paul Clement told the court that the constitution protects carrying concealed firearms outside the home. He also said there should be no requirement for a citizen to prove a special need in order to exercise a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Questions and comments by several justices pointed out that many lower courts were not adhering to the Heller and McDonald decisions by the high court and not applying the proper heightened scrutiny levels that the Second Amendment deserves.
SAF filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the NYSR&PA case, which was joined by several other gun rights organizations.
“After listening to the oral arguments,” Gottlieb said, “I’m convinced the ruling will impact the other seven states that do not recognize Second Amendment rights with their discretionary ‘may issue’ carry laws. I also think the court’s ruling should impact dozens of other cases SAF has filed that are currently in the lower federal courts.
“An affirmative ruling, which we expect sometime in June 2022,” Gottlieb noted, “will only reinforce our mission to win back firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”
About SAF
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 700,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Wishes and horseshoes. Until it comes out nothing is assured. I just did some traveling to the restricted zone (multiple blue states) and I couldn’t carry let alone conceal. Until that is fixed we don’t have anything. Constitutional carry is the standard we need.
Don’t celebrate yet until the ruling comes down. Don’t forget the deep states plan here is to destroy the 2nd ammendment. The liberal judges are without a doubt voting against allowing people to carry guns. The others have been compromised ie JOHN ROBERTS so the deep state will blackmail him. As far as the others one or two not voting is all it takes to flip it against gun owners.
I don’t expect any kind of ruling based on the Constitution. Even the so-called conservative judges seem to be fake. What a shame when law enforcement, government officials and judges no longer uphold laws. They each should be dragged out of the court and sent packing. Enough!
I would not get to excited, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy. and so far he tends to vote as Kennedy did, with the liberal judges! Coney-Barret is about as wishy washy as you can get and Roberts has been a liberal since he joined the court with only rare conservative votes!