Thus far, even ‘conservatives’ on the court have shown they aren’t comfortable with Americans being armed to the extent the Framers intended. The Supreme Court is expected to soon hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen , challenging a New York law that allows judges and police commissioners to deny licenses, to carry handguns for self-defense away from home, to applicants they deem do not have “proper cause.” As a result, applicants who want to exercise “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” as the Supreme Court put it in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), are routinely turned down. New York is one of eight heavily Democrat states with this sort of law, the others being California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. A Brief History Of State Carry Laws In “The Right To Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right Of The People Or A Privilege Of The Ruling Class?,” Second and Fourteenth Amendment scholar Stephen P. Halbrook shows that in this part of the world, from day one until well after the Second Amendment’s ratification, carrying handguns and other arms for protection, concealed or openly, away from home (without a license) was lawful, thus within the scope of the right to arms as understood by the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, in the 1800s, state legislatures began prohibiting the carrying of weapons concealed, state courts mostly let them get away with it—an […]
Click here to view original web page at Can The Supreme Court Be Trusted On The Second Amendment?