Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.
The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/cour ... ghts-case/
IMO, the relevant section of the Constitution, besides the 10th Amendment and relevant state laws that were in place at the time they were written (and have all been repealed) that required
militia membership and gun ownership - Article 1, Section 8
- that prefaces the 2nd Amendment:
The Congress shall have power:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Since the "right" to keep and bear arms was based on the requirement
that states maintain militias, any Justice who rules against the state's right to regulate how guns are used, or by whom, loses the right to call himself an originalist, as all of the conservative Justices do. My opinion is that the creation of the National Guard and the dropping of the requirements for "all able-bodied men" to be members made a very strong originalist argument for states to have the ability to outright ban private gun ownership. But what do I know, I just have the ability to read.
Don't look at me, I just work here.