WATCH for U.S. Supreme decision on NY Second Amendment right-to-carry case
NOTE: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v.
Keith M. Corlett, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
SAF HAILS HIGH COURT ACCEPTANCE OF NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
The Second Amendment Foundation today is hailing the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Second Amendment right-to-carry case challenging New York State’s restrictive gun control law, declaring that a favorable ruling in this case will almost certainly impact challenges to similar laws in other states, which SAF and others are contesting.The case is known as NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. It is the first time in more than a decade the high court has accepted a Second Amendment case for review since the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which was a SAF case decided in June 2010.“This case was made possible by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF’s victory in that case built the foundation for this and other lawsuits against states and localities to be heard by the Supreme Court to protect and expand gun rights, and we are proud of that.”Gottlieb said it is certain the current makeup of the high court has opened this important door. With the addition last year of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court now has a majority of constitutional jurists who will no longer treat the Second Amendment as “a constitutional orphan,” as once observed by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to not only keep arms, but to bear them,” Gottlieb observed. “SAF has several right-to-carry cases filed which include challenges to restrictive laws in New Jersey, Maryland and New York City. A favorable ruling in this case will almost certainly impact those and other cases.“The entire gun rights community has waited for many years for this news,” he added. “A right that exists only in one’s home is not a right at all. We do not limit the right of free speech, or freedom of the press, or the practice of one’s religion, or the right to legal counsel just to someone’s residence. And ultimately, that’s what we’re talking about, constitutionally-protected fundamental rights.”
QUESTION PRESENTED
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’ fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense.
The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners are Robert Nash, Brandon Koch, and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. Petitioners were plaintiffs in the district court and plaintiffs-appellants in the court of appeals.
Respondents are Keith M. Corlett, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Police, and Richard J. McNally, Jr., sued in his official capacity as Justice of the New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial District, and Licensing Officer for Rensselaer County. Respondents were the defendants in the district court and defendants- appellees in the court of appeals.*
* Respondent Corlett became Superintendent of the New York State Police on June 4, 2019. His predecessor, George P. Beach II, was named as a defendant in his official capacity in the district court.
States filed Amicus Briefs:
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
This brief is filed on behalf of the states of Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Utah, and West Virginia.1 The undersigned are their respective states’ chief legal officers and have authority to file briefs on behalf of the states they represent.
Through their Attorneys General, the Amici States have a special responsibility to safeguard their citizens’ fundamental rights, including their right to bear arms in self-defense outside the home. The Second Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Second Amendment threatens the liberty of citizens in every State, not just New York. Moreover, the States have a unique perspective that should aid the Court in weighing the value and importance of the questions presented by the petition. The Amici States are charged with advancing their substantial interests in public safety, preventing crime, and reducing the harmful effects of firearm violence while ensuring that their citizens can exercise their enumerated constitutional right to bear arms. The Amici States offer this brief to highlight empirical research and their experiences with permit systems for applicants that meet objective criteria, and to call the Court to restore the original public meaning of the right to bear arms.