Text, History and Tradition – Not Interest Balancing – At the Heart of Supreme Court’s New York Gun Rights Case
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen, a challenge to New York State’s discretionary concealed carry licensing scheme, which requires New Yorkers to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government bureaucrat that they have some sort of special, individualized, good cause before being permitted to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Today Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a challenge to the virtual ban on concealed carry in New York State. The brief was filed on our behalf as well as that of Gun Owners of America and the Heller Foundation. We critique the Second Circuit case in Kachalsky v County of Westchester, explain how the New York licensing scheme undermines the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment addressing the People’s militia and the objective of a free state. We also show that the interest balancing test applied by the court was prohibited by Heller. We explain the true source of pre-existing rights, and show that they cannot be altered by government. Lastly, we urge the Court to write a decision designed to be difficult for the lower federal courts to undermine, as they have done with Heller and McDonald.
GOA, GOF Tell SCOTUS to “Reject and Repudiate” New York’s Gun Control, and to “Protect Pre-existing and Unalienable Rights of the People”
Springfield, VA – Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the Heller Foundation have submitted an amicus brief in NYSRPA v Bruen, a case that challenges New York’s infringing “may-issue” permitting system before the Supreme Court.
Gun Owners Foundation filed its second brief in the Young v. Hawaii challenge to Hawaii’s virtual total ban on carrying firearms in the State of Hawaii. Our earlier brief was filed before the Ninth Circuit en banc. This brief was filed in the U.S .Supreme court in support of Young’s Petition for Certiorari. We urge the Court to overturn the two-step test used in many Second Amendment challenges. We also challenge the “longstanding” ban in Hawaii, most of which occurred during the time Hawaii was governed by a Monarchy. We demonstrate why certiorari should be granted even though New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett is pending before the court. And we trace the numerous criticisms by Justices and Judges as to how the lower courts have treated the Second Amendment since Heller and McDonald.
This morning the Supreme Court issued its decision in Caniglia v. Strom and struck down an attempt by Rhode Island police to conduct warrantless searches for guns in a home using the so-called “community caretaking function.”
This article originally appeared on The Truth About Guns website.
The Bill of Rights establishes express limitations on government power in areas where the Framers knew from history that governments were prone to invade the pre-existing, God-given rights of their citizens.
Gun Owners Foundation, in conjunction with Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and the Heller Foundation, has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision which allowed a ban on gun possession by a man who had suffered a mental health crisis as a minor, but who had since then been found by the State of Washington not to be a danger to himself or to others. Nevertheless, as the Ninth Circuit has done in every Second Amendment challenge brought before it since Heller, the court upheld the restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Our brief explains why the Ninth Circuit and other lower federal courts are blatantly disregarding the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald in such decisions, instead applying the position advanced by Justice Breyer in dissent.
Today, Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a First Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms by police after a Petitioner husband and his wife had a non-violent, non-threatening argument. Tired of arguing with his wife, the husband threw down an unloaded handgun and said something like “just shoot me.” The next day the police showed up to do a “wellness check,” and insisted the husband go to a hospital to be interviewed, a request to which he submitted, and he was found to be non-suicidal. The police lied to the husband, lied to the wife, and searched for and seized his firearms without a warrant, and now assert that the supposed “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment permitted the search and seizure.
Page 1 of 5