The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday morning struck down a New York state gun law that made it difficult to obtain a handgun carry permit.
In an opinion penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled 6-3 to strike down the New York law.
Thomas writes that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect Americans’ right to carry a handgun for self-defense.
The court holds that New York’s “proper cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
As Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley noted on Twitter:
“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.”
What this could mean for the eight states that have “May Issue” concealed carry laws is a pivot to “Shall Issue” that requires fewer restrictions in obtaining a concealed carry permit.
Scattered Shots 
The last glimmer of optimism in me hopes this will change the idiocy across the river in Maryland…but I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLike
its cute that you still have hope. Stay golden ponyboy
LikeLike
WTF, dude?
LikeLike
Im saying that I wish I still had hope and optimism that any of the shit the court does will make a difference in those shithole states. evidently you took it the wrong way
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with that part of society but I think ponyboy is a gay thing. As long as you’re not calling me a fag, we’re good, lol.
I agree with the rest. I know it’s not exactly rational – maybe a solid dose of normalcy bias – but I try to hold on to a little hope. As far as realistic expectations…the commies quit caring about law and the rules a long time ago – this changes nothing.
LikeLike
I’ll add…call me naive, call me a dumbass…you wouldn’t be entirely wrong. But I definitely don’t suck dicks.
LikeLike
keep telling us you’re not a homo, the more you keep saying it, the more we will belive you
LikeLike
Never read the book or seen the movie The Outsiders I take it? thats a line from the book. about a kid with the nickname Ponyboy who was always optimistic
LikeLike
Nope on both. That explains a lot.
LikeLike
yeah, the book isnt about anything gay, but since the author was a woman writing male characters it unintentionally sounds like it sometimes.
LikeLike
This is great news, but I’m expecting a nullification crisis. Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland (at least) don’t even observe FOPA almost 40 years after it became law. Some states may jump on board (I think CA and maybe MD may just knuckle under), but I think a couple of states are going to slow walk, malinger, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With any luck this ruling will give Governor Noisome,Pelosi and what’s left of DiFi a stroke.
“May Issue” is a sweet way for local law enforcement to raise campaign funds ($5K per permit in Santa Clara County) and make your special friends feel even more special.
Friends like Don Perata and the late Diane Feinstein ( she’s been brain dead for several years).
I’m really going to enjoy the hissy fits!
And the law suits!!
LikeLike
One huge change not to be overlooked is the elimination of the government interest balancing tests that appeals courts and lower courts have been using to rubber stamp infringement gun laws.
NYSRPA v Bruen
“We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The gov- ernment must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amend- ment’s “unqualified command.””
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m curious to see whether and how this decision will be used on issues peripheral to may-issue versus shall-issue: California‘s handgun roster, various “assault weapons bans”, etc. I noted the language you quoted but I haven’t seen any commentary on it from people who know what they are talking about. I do note that Justice Thomas did not use the catchphrase “strict scrutiny”, but not being an expert, I can’t even speculate on what that means.
The Bruen decision did specifically address jurisdictions malingering with regards to taking months to deliver erstwhile shall-issue permits, excessive fees, etc., condemning them specifically. I thought that was interesting and perhaps a response to some of the vagueness in Heller (“commonly used”) that various bad actors have made so much hay with.
If the current court’s composition remains the same for a while, we may see a court that is more ready to strike down laws that the court has been hesitant to even take up under the old composition (before the RBG/Barrett swap).
LikeLike