Posts Tagged nysrpa v bruen

The Bruen Decision Was Just The Beginning

From The Truth About Guns:

There are no longer tiered levels of examination or scrutiny. If the law in question materially limits the right to keep and bear arms, then, with remarkably few exceptions, under Bruen the law will be an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Six Takeaways From The NY Gun Case

From The Federalist:

While New York conceded the Second Amendment applies beyond one’s threshold, Solicitor General Barbara Underwood quickly forgot that the Bill of Rights protects rights—it doesn’t define privileges. For instance, in discussing the regulation of firearms outside the home, Underwood started to say that “these regulations are all an effort to accommodate the right,” but then backtracked, saying the regulations seek to “respect the right of self-defense.”

The slip of the tongue was telling, however: It means New York state doesn’t truly view the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a right, but as a privilege it will accommodate — when governmental officials deem it appropriate.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Effect Of Dread Scott On The New York Gun Case

From The Federalist:

Dred Scott has several implications for the Bruen case. First, it affirms that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a normal individual right, like the other individual rights listed in the case, such as free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, jury trial, and so on.

Dred Scott refutes the notion that bans on bearing arms were the norm in the United States (or in any State). According to Dred Scott, American citizens have always had the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went”—so recognizing blacks as citizens would mean recognizing their right to bear arms.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments