Connect with us


Supreme Court takes on first big gun rights case in more than a decade



The United States Supreme Court will take on the first big Second Amendment case in more than ten years, deciding whether the U.S. Constitution secures the right of Americans to acquire a permit to carry a handgun in public.

It will be the first big gun rights case to come in front of the Court since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and a chance for former President Donald Trump’s appointees and the supposed 6-3 “conservative majority” on the Court to remove restrictions on the right of Americans to bear arms in public.

The case also comes at a time when President Biden’s administration is looking to insert new gun control measures via executive order as he pressures Congress to address a “gun violence public health epidemic” following a few mass shootings this year.

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court majority said that Americans have a Second Amendment right to keep handguns and other operational firearms in their homes for safety reasons. Two years later in McDonald, the Court held that the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to hold and bear arms for the intention of self-defense applicable to the states.

This new case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Keith Corlett, asks if a New York law that calls for state residents to show “proper cause” and a “special need for self-protection” in order to acquire a concealed carry permit unconstitutionally defies on the right to bear arms.

The suit was brought by Robert Nash and Brendan Koch, two men who applied for licenses to carry handguns for self-defense and were declined, in partnership with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. A district court ruled that neither man had proper cause to acquire a concealed carry permit in New York because neither had “any special or unique danger to [their] life.”

A federal appeals court later backed the lower court’s decision to deny Nash and Koch permits to carry handguns.

The NYSRPA and the National Rifle Association asked the Supreme Court in December to handle this case.

“Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is, according to these courts, not sufficient,” Paul Clement, the former solicitor general for President George W. Bush’s administration and the attorney representing plaintiffs Nash and Koch, wrote in his brief. “Nor is living or being employed in a ‘high crime area.'”

Clement argues that the New York law makes it unlawfully hard for a state resident to acquire a permit to carry a handgun and asks the Supreme Court to settle the argument.

“As this Court made clear in both Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, at its core, guarantees a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” he wrote. “Like the threats that might precipitate a need to act in self-defense, that individual and fundamental right necessarily extends beyond the four walls of one’s home.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James asked the Supreme Court to deny to hear the case, stating that New York’s law was consistent with the precedents in Heller and McDonald. She noted that the Court in McDonald said its decision should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions,” pointing out that New York’s law was passed in 1913.

The state law is “supported by a centuries-old tradition of state and local measures regulating the carrying of firearms in public,” James argued.

“New York’s law directly advances the State’s compelling interests in protecting the public from gun violence,” she added.

New York state is known for having some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, being one of only eight states that “may issue” a concealed carry permit after making a judgement call about an applicant. Other states “shall issue” concealed carry permits to applicants that meet state requirements. New York does not recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits and in some counties comprising New York City, there is really no right to carry a firearm in public.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Survey shows majority of Americans reject Build Back Better: More think Biden’s infrastructure spending bill will hurt them more than help them



In a total inversion of what Democrats had expected, Americans have dismissed the expensive framework bill with gigantic social projects incorporated into it. Another survey shows that more Americans repel the Democrats’ $1.75 trillion spending proposition than welcome it.

As indicated by another ABC News/Ipsos survey delivered on Sunday, public help for President Joe Biden’s bills to expand spending on framework and social projects has blurred.

The overview tracked down that 32% of Americans feel that the spending bills would hurt individuals like them if they became law, while 25% said they accept the bills would help them. Close to 66% (64%) of Republicans figure the bills would hurt individuals like them, and 29% of free thinkers feel something very similar. In spite of being the significant system of Biden’s administration, less than half of Democrats (47%) accept the two bills would help them.

A CBS News survey from recently tracked down that 36% of respondents said it would help them and their family versus 33% who said it would hurt their friends and family. The overview additionally said that 79% of review members said that expansion was brought about by supply and assembling issues after the pandemic and 66% said it was brought about by U.S. government strategy. “And when asked about potential causes of inflation right now, two-thirds cited U.S. government policy,” the outlet stated.

The poll showed that just 37% of Americans thought that Biden and the Democrats were centered around issues they care very much about.

This sad survey for Biden and the Democrats shows up on that very days as a NBC News review that shows the president at unsurpassed lows. The NBC News surveys found that Biden was submerged interestingly of his administration – 42% endorsement rating versus 54% who object.

The survey likewise showed that 71% said the nation is “off on the wrong track” – including 48% of Democrats.

“When you see a wrong track of 71%, it is a flashing red light,” Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies said. “These folks are telling us that this is not going well.”

That is a huge increment from one more survey in September that said 61% of Americans felt like the country has “pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.”

Continue Reading


President Biden says the Pope advised him to continue to take communion and considered him a ‘good Catholic’



President Joe Biden said that Pope Francis let him know he was a “good Catholic” and said he could keep on taking communion regardless of the complaints of numerous U.S. bishops.

Biden made the case after a private gathering with the pontiff at the Vatican on Friday.

“We just talked about the fact he was happy that I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving Communion,” Biden said about the gathering.

He added that the topic of abortion didn’t come up in the gathering.

An assertion from the White House showed that Biden said thanks to the Pope for pushing for an “equitable global economic recovery” and for battling global warming.

“Biden thanked His Holiness for his advocacy for the world’s poor and those suffering from hunger, conflict, and persecution,” the assertion added.

The Vatican didn’t affirm Biden’s case in their official statement about their gathering.

Biden’s claim will probably disappoint and outrage many conservative Catholics in the U.S. who have called for communion to be declined to politicians who stand behind abortion, which is in opposition to Catholic church teaching.

The issue will be taken up by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following upon a vote during their June plenary meeting to address it generally. After Biden met with the Pope, they delivered an assertion saying that they would not single out a particular legislator if they vote to say something about the issue.

The Pope had recently reacted to the contention by approaching the diocesans to try not to politicize the congregation’s most elevated holy observance, which would transform it into a “source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”

Here’s additional info on the gathering between the Pope and Biden:

Continue Reading


Gold Star father tears into Biden over supposed arrangement to give large installments to illegal migrant families



Gold Star father David Horton slammed President Joe Biden in a meeting Sunday, scrutinizing the Biden organization’s accounted for plan to convey huge financial installments to some migrant families.

The Wall Street Journal announced last week about the arrangement to pay migrant families affected by previous President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance illegal immigration policies.

The Biden administration is in talks to offer immigrant families that were separated during the Trump administration around $450,000 a person in compensation, according to people familiar with the matter, as several agencies work to resolve lawsuits filed on behalf of parents and children who say the government subjected them to lasting psychological trauma.

The U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family, though the final numbers could shift, the people familiar with the matter said. Most of the families that crossed the border illegally from Mexico to seek asylum in the U.S. included one parent and one child, the people said. Many families would likely get smaller payouts, depending on their circumstances, the people said.

Among the issues pundits have raised with the arrangement, the greatest is that non-citizens remain to get additional cash from the U.S. government than gold star families if the arrangement becomes reality.

As of now, the U.S. government pays the group of fallen assistance individuals $100,000 in “death gratuity”; the installments are tax excluded. The families of service members additionally have the choice to gather a limit of $400,000 in extra security, however administration individuals need to pay into the protection intend to accept its advantages.

Speaking on “Fox and Friends,” Horton — whose son, Army Spc. Christopher Horton, was killed in Afghanistan in 2011 — proclaimed the Biden administration’s arrangement “an insult” and clarified it disrespects military families.

“I think it’s another — yet another insult … against our military families and Gold Star families and veterans’ families,” Horton said. “It’s just another another slap in the face. It’s completely disrespectful.”

“To compare an illegal person who has broken our country’s border laws … they’ve broken the law coming in on our borders and to compare that with someone, a patriot like my son, who gave his all on the battlefield of Afghanistan, and to just say, ‘Oh well, the value is more for someone who has broken our laws’ … and now to say, ‘Oh, we owe you money — and it’s more money than we would pay a patriot — I am outraged,” Horton said.

“You just wonder, where is the outcry against some of these policies that are just there? Unbelievable to me,” Horton added.

Continue Reading