Supreme Court to rule on concealed carry

[task0778]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except where necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do about anything. If New York wants more restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

 

[toobfreak]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

 

[skews13]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

 

[martybegan]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

Unless of course you know the right people, or are a retired police officer. Then you can get a permit.

The issue with "may issue" is it is usually left up to the local law enforcement, and they will almost always say no unless you are in more rural upstate areas.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

wrong,,, abortion isnt a right and there are only human rights not gay or straight rights

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

concealed or open carry

That’s not what the case concerns.

The Court will determine whether the may-issue license policy violates the Second Amendment.

Under a may-issue policy, even if a state resident meets all the technical, statutory requirements for a concealed weapon license, if the resident can’t demonstrate a compelling reason why he should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, the license will be denied.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Just like a woman’s right to privacy or the right of same-sex couples to marry is not a state issue.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

So much for “states’ rights.”

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Just like a woman’s right to privacy or the right of same-sex couples to marry is not a state issue.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

you forgot to provide a link for your claims.. and if you got your head out of your ass you would see I just defended gay marriage,,

and what you claim as a womens right to privacy doesnt exist when they want to have their child killed,, if fact I cant find a right to privacy anywhere in the constitution,,

 

[progressive hunter]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

So much for “states’ rights.”

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

try reading the 9th-10th amendments

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything.

Whether you like it or not the fact remains that Federal laws and decisions by the Federal courts – ultimately the Supreme Court – are the supreme laws of the land; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to those laws and courts decisions, as originally intended by the Framers.

Should the Court rule in favor of the New York residents seeking concealed weapon licenses, then the may-issue policy will be invalidated, in New York and other states and jurisdictions with a may-issue policy.

 

[task0778]

So much for “states’ rights.”

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

And democrats even moreso. The SCOTUS will decide whether CC restrictions are an infringement, and I can live with whatever they say but the problem is that criminals and the mentally ill won't care if they don't have a CC permit or not. If they want to shoot somebody, they won't let the law stop them.

 

[toobfreak]

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

New York State is the worst: they won't issue you a carry permit unless you can show your life practically in danger. And they expect you to keep everything you have locked up so much you can't even get to it hardly yourself. People living there call it Cuomostan.

So much for “states’ rights.”

Carrying is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT coming down from God, not a state right, asslips! Show me where any State of the USA is mentioned in the 2A?

 

[progressive hunter]

I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything.

Whether you like it or not the fact remains that Federal laws and decisions by the Federal courts – ultimately the Supreme Court – are the supreme laws of the land; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to those laws and courts decisions, as originally intended by the Framers.

Should the Court rule in favor of the New York residents seeking concealed weapon licenses, then the may-issue policy will be invalidated, in New York and other states and jurisdictions with a may-issue policy.

the premise of your statement is a lie,,

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

That's a stretch. To me it's something to be left to the States for issuing or not.

HOWEVER, If State A issues one, and State B does not, State B still have to recognize the State A marriage as a valid marriage under the full faith and credit clause.

Does that create an imperfect solution? Yes, but it follows the Constitution as I see it.

 

[Concerned American]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except where necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do about anything. If New York wants more restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

I don't agree with the states' attempts to regulate the second. It is very clear and I don't think it needs any meddling.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state’s denial of their applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense.

It will be heard next term, which begins in October.

The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes.

With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett last year significantly shifting the court's ideological balance to the right, court watchers have been waiting to see if the new majority would seek to revisit states' gun restrictions.

In the brief order issued Monday, the justices said they would hear the case and focus on whether "the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied concealed carry permits for self-defense because New York officials had determined that they had failed to show a "special need" to carry weapons as required under state law.

Their lawsuit argues that such restrictions on concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment. If they prevail in front of the Supreme Court, it could upend concealed carry laws across the country.

According to the gun control activist group the Giffords Law Center, 31 states currently require residents to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon, with varying degrees of restrictions on those permits.

Supreme Court takes up major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

thehill.com

As a rule, I generally like the idea of each state legislating their own laws regarding gun control and concealed or open carry. Except were necessary, I do not like an intrusive federal gov't that tells everybody everywhere in this country what they can and can't do and anything. If New York wants to restrictions than Texas, so be it. The voters can and should vote out the people who make laws they don't like. Or move to another state, which apparently is happening a lot in NY.

its not a state issue and is the responsibility of the feds to protect us from any and all infringements,,

Exactly, just like abortion rights for women, and equal protections for gay members of society, from zealots that pass state laws, infringing their rights.

Abortion and SSM are not mentioned in the Constitution, the RKBA is.

The first two your side makes up stuff and calls it constitutional, the last one your side makes stuff up to effect infringement.

actually gay marriage is in a non direct way,, the first A says freedom to assemble,, doesnt say with who or why,,

That's a stretch. To me it's something to be left to the States for issuing or not.

HOWEVER, If State A issues one, and State B does not, State B still have to recognize the State A marriage as a valid marriage under the full faith and credit clause.

Does that create an imperfect solution? Yes, but it follows the Constitution as I see it.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a direct statement and I see nowhere that the states have a say,,

could you point it out to me??

as for marriage could you also point out where any government has a say in two peoples private lives??