the Supreme Court today agreed to hear the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett, a major 2nd Amendment case that will address the question:

Whether the state’s denial of Petitioner’s applications for Concealed-Carry Licenses for Self-Defense violated the Second Amendment?

Interestingly, that is not the question as posed in the Petition. In the Petition the Court was asked to answer the following question:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense? //

the question as posed in the Petition asked for an interpretation of the breadth of the Second Amendment’s pre-emption of state regulation, whereas the question as reformulated by the Court focuses on what New York has done and whether that act violates the Second Amendment — a question that can be answered without sweeping away all other state-imposed limitations on gun ownership and possession.

The language chosen by the Court suggests a narrower analysis of the specific New York’s firearm permitting process, and seems to focus on the specific applications made by the Petitioners within the framework of the statutory limitations created by New York going back to a point in time prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment. //

Deciding the applicable “standard of review” — particularly if the Court decides that “strict scrutiny” is the proper standard — would then be a basis to send the case back to the Second Circuit without addressing the foundational issue of how broad are the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. It would also cause a likely “reset” of other cases recently decided or currently pending in other circuit courts. A decision establishing the “standard of review” would “rewrite the rules” in a meaningful fashion on how lower courts should evaluate state restrictions on gun ownership and possession. Such a “reset” of lower court cases would allow the Supreme Court to again put off resolving the more controversial issues about how far the Second Amendment should reach in prohibiting state regulation of firearms. //

DannyBhoyo13
4 hours ago
From what I gather, the Supreme Court narrowing the question under dispute give them another opportunity to punt on decision concerning, “shall not be infringed.” //

Romeg
4 hours ago edited
The Right of Self-Defense PRE-EXISTS the creation of ANY State since it is a Natural Right that is part and parcel of being a natural person while The State is an artifice, a creation of mankind whose 'just powers' derive from those who created The State. Having thus been created and granted such powers as it has and not having been granted, expressly, the right to LIMIT natural rights, The State, therefore, LACKS the power to grant unto itself the power to LIMIT the Natural Rights of those who created IT.

It never occurred to the Founders to apply the language of the Second Amendment to the states since, first off, The Constitution of The United States establishes the Federal Government and the Bill of Rights, which includes The Second Amendment thereto, LIMITS the powers of The Federal Government. But for the Natural Right of Self Defense which presupposes the right to Keep and Bear Arms, the American Revolution would have been lost before that first shot was fired on April 15, 1775 and NO STATES would exist as the consequence. They would be Provinces akin to other former elements of the United Kingdom.

If NO STATE can invade a woman's privacy for the sake of protecting the life of another human being then how, in G*d's Name, can it have the power to tell one of its citizens that unless you can demonstrate some special need, you don't have the right to arm yourself for your own protection?

The language is plainly on display in the Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States: "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Maintenance of a Free State*, The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

*Free State, in the context of this amendment, does NOT refer to any political subdivision. Rather it refers to the CONDITION of being Free, as in the language of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 4: 10-14, to wit:

"10-But I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye have revived your thought for me; wherein ye did indeed take thought, but ye lacked opportunity. 11-Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content. 12-I know how to be abased, and I know also how to abound: in everything and in all things have I learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. 13-I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me. 14-Howbeit ye did well that ye had fellowship with my affliction."