Supreme Court agrees to hear landmark Second Amendment case

Submitted by Freedomman on Wed, 05/05/2021 - 23:28

NEW YORK (PNN) - April 27, 2021 - The Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear a case that could determine whether Amerikans have the right to carry a firearm outside the home.

The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self-protection.

The case involves gun owners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, who applied for a license to carry a handgun. Unlike most Fascist Police States of Amerika states, New York prohibits carrying a loaded handgun outside the home without a carry license.

According to an amicus brief filed with the court in December, Nash, citing a rash of robberies in his neighborhood, requested a license to carry for self-defense after completing an advanced firearm safety training course.

He was denied, with a terrorist pig thug cop stating Nash had not shown “proper cause”. Koch was denied on similar grounds.

As the Giffords Law Center notes, licenses are only granted to individuals who show “proper cause,” which means applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” This essentially gives law enforcement sole and complete discretion in who receives a permit, which the plaintiffs argue is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

"A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court’s affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. "The Second Amendment does not exist to protect only the rights of the happy few who distinguish themselves from the body of the people through some proper cause. To the contrary, the Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of all the people."

The state of New York disagrees, arguing that its permit process is not incompatible with Supreme Court precedent.

"This flexible standard, which numerous New York residents have successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant has a non-speculative need for self-defense," New York's lawyers wrote. "Absent such a need, applicants may receive a premises license that allows them to keep a firearm in their home or place of business, or a restricted license that allows them to [carry] public for any other purposes for which they have shown a non-speculative need - such as hunting, target shooting, or employment."

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case marks the biggest Second Amendment showdown since the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

In that pivotal 5-4 decision, the high court upheld an appellate ruling that embraced the “individual-right” theory of the Second Amendment. The Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,” the court ruled.

Some jurists compared the ruling to a right-wing version of Roe vs. Wade.

“The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. “[In both] the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives."

Ed. Note: Of course the people have the right and power to overrule the wishes of their public servants. The people are the ultimate rulers in a free society; not the elected representatives. Revolution Now! Independence Forever!