New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett has been a major case in the works for a while, but there was serious doubt as to whether or not it would get picked up by the Supreme Court. The case centers around New York’s concealed carry licensing laws which are “may issue” meaning that you are not guaranteed to get a concealed carry permit if you apply. The question being asked by the petitioner is whether or not the Second Amendment prevents government from barring individuals from carrying handguns for the purposes of self-defense.
The acceptance of this case is major news not just because the case itself is so important, but because the Supreme Court has been on a long streak of avoiding Second Amendment related cases. Several other cases have been pushed aside in recent weeks due to a lack of support from the justices. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear out any Second Amendment cases has caught the ire of many gun owners in America.
From Bearing Arms:
The Court’s acceptance of this case is going to lead to a meltdown by many on the Left. Expect court-packing rhetoric to grow red hot from the likes of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and other anti-gun Democrats who’ve been threatening the Court with “restructuring” if it took a Second Amendment-related case for well over a year now. Gun control groups have also leaned in on the idea of packing the Court full of anti-gun justices, and they’ll likely be beating the drum for Democrats to nuke the filibuster and pack the Court to either prevent or overturn a decision that strikes down New York’s draconian “may-issue” laws.
Besides New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, the Court also had the chance to weigh in on another case dealing with a prohibited person seeking to regain their rights. Unlike last week, when justices turned away three cases dealing with non-violent felons hoping to have their rights restored, this week the justices considered a case in which a man who was involuntarily committed more than 20 years ago when he was 17-years old is trying to get his right to keep and bear arms returned to him.
Duy Mai had his rights restored at the state level back in 2014, but the federal prohibition on his gun ownership remains in effect. In his cert petition, Mai and his attorneys argued that the continued and permanent deprivation of his rights, despite the fact that the state where he lives no longer views him as a danger to himself or others, is “unconscionable and cannot withstand Second Amendment scrutiny.”
The acceptance of this case might lead to more Second Amendment cases getting picked up by the court in the future. As mentioned in the article from Bearing Arms, restoration of Second Amendment rights is a big topic that is up for debate. Three cases that were up for consideration but rejected by the Supreme Court revolved around this topic.
