SCOTUS Takes 2A Case

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.”​