April 27, 2021
-Big League Politics
The Supreme Court announced Monday that they will soon take up a case involving the scope of the Second Amendment. This would mark the first time in a decade that SCOTUS has taken a case regarding the right to firearm ownership.
The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is being brought to the limelight in regards to New York state law regarding the ability of a citizen to carry a concealed weapon in public. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, New York residents are required to prove to government workers that they have an “actual and articulable” need to do so.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could have an impact on the millions of people living in jurisdictions with restrictive public carry licensing regimes and will tell us how broadly the current set of justices are reading the Second Amendment,” said Jacob D. Charles, the executive director of the Center for Firearms law at Duke University School of Law.
After the District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s rights to defend themselves in their home and that Washington, D.C. could not legally ban handguns. Until now the Supreme Court has yet to take any other case regarding the secondment, drawing frustrations from many.
“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene,” Thomas wrote in a 2018 case. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”
What distinguishes New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett from DC v. Heller is the scope of the Second Amendment rights being argued. With this new case, the Supreme Court may rule in a manner that allows millions of residents in New York and other states to carry a concealed firearm – a right that has been denied to many for decades.
Will the Supreme Court at last affirm the Second Amendment right granted to all Americans, regardless of the desires of those who seek to infringe it? Recent rulings may discourage some, but the previous ruling in DC v. Heller, coupled with multiple Trump appointees having taken the court, might be just enough to turn the tide.