SCOTUS Watch June 15 2022

a reply to: JinMI
Thanks for the info and update.
It is appreciated.

Scotus upholds 2A!!!!

Huzzah!!!!!!!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Reading now.

www.supremecourt.gov...

a reply to: JinMI

Some relevant quotes:

(c) The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is
not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules
than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780
(plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not
require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special
need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates
the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with
ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and
bear arms in public. Pp. 62–63.

I join the Court’s opinion, and I write separately to underscore two important points about the limits of the
Court’s decision.
First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from
imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for
self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue”
regimes—that are employed in 43 States.
The Court’s decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as “may-issue” regimes,
that are employed by 6 States including New York. As the

2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring

Shall issue it is. While it's a move in the correct direction, it's still requesting permission from the gov't to exercise your 2nd amendment right.

Which begs the question; why do you need to request permission if the answer will be yes providing you are able to purchase the firearm. Would not the demonstration of purchase of a firearm be all the permission necessary to also be able to carry said arm?

By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al.
as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime,
those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of
some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners
acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied challenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in
that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51.
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shallissue States.