It would be incomprehensible for the U.S. Supreme Court to shrink their focus next year on just the issue of New York’s draconian self-protection gun carry permit law.
As it now stands, a NYC licensed gun owner cannot transport his gun outside his home even to take it to a gun range unless it is unloaded and he/she has a permit to do so. There is a similarity to what the Court decided in the landmark 2008 Heller v. DC case that overturned the District’s ban against carrying a handgun beyond the front door of the gun owner’s residence.
While speculating what the Court might do is usually a fool’s errand, we’re willing to take that chance. The country has struggled with the sideshow of state, municipal, and county gun restrictions formed at the whims of local politicians, primarily Democrat lawmakers with an anti-gun bias who somehow think that just passing another bewildering prohibition will instantly lead to controlling gun crime and making life safer for the pubic.
Such proposals only end up becoming head-shakers to those with an interest in the constitutional right of self-protection.
We prefer to look at the Court’s review of the New York case – which, while added to the long list of cases for which petitioners have filed a writ of certiorari – as not just a single issue but the bucket of mish-mash prohibitions designed only to make criminals out of the law-abiding population.
There are laws on the books for every state, city, county, town and even in some cases, neighborhoods, relative to for instance how close to a school or a park a gun dealer can set up shop, that have made a laughing stock out of the public initiative process. Gun control advocates have taken advantage of that approach to con the unarmed and unconscious gun knowledge citizens into believing their motives are all about ‘gun safety’ which has little to do with protection and everything to do with political expediency. At some point, this continued collective of competing gun laws need curbs placed on them for expeditious containment.
The court insists on starting somewhere and in this instance it’s the New York issue on a permit holder having a loaded gun in the home being able to legally carry it outside the home, as well.
The court annually gets petitioned for as many as 7000 cases per year of which they only take between 100-150 for review. Those cases must be agreed to by at least four of the nine justices. Until Justice Brett Kavanaugh was seated after his contentious confirmation battle with Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, there was not much enthusiasm by Chief Justice John Roberts – currently considered a potential swing vote since Justice Stevens retired last year – for taking on the heavy burden of another Second Amendment case.
Now, however, at least four confirming justices – Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh – have agreed to begin hearings on the New York case. Those hearings will not begin until October of this year when the next term of the court goes into session. Following hearing review the court is not likely to release its decision until June of 2020, a national, i.e., presidential, election year.
It is up to pro-gun advocates to control their anxieties until then. Similarly, a decision overturning the New York law, bringing it into conformation with Heller-DC, might also include references to such newly hatched restrictions as magazine size bans, definitions for civilian use of all semi-automatic rifles, ammunition purchases and punitive taxes, universal background checks, so-called “red flag” laws that allow family members, relatives and others to pursue gun prohibitions for individuals including domestic violence perpetrators and those with mental issues to petition for a ban on gun possession for such individuals without due process, locations for gun stores and gun shows, gun storage requirements and where guns may legally be carried and by whom in public buildings, parks, sporting events and similar venues, gun purchase age restrictions, and to define regulatory responsibilities of the ATF for such gun accessories as bump stocks, binary trigger systems and ‘trigger cranks’.
It is almost impossible to conceive the Court taking on one of those many polemical issues singularly when, if nothing more than a judicial time-saver, they can tie a bow on the whole package of constitutional gifts to American sing-along freedom fighters everywhere.