Even When The News Is Good…

     …it’s unwise to rely on the honesty or candor of the political class.

     A few hours ago, the Supreme Court struck down New York State’s “may issue” handgun-permit law:

     The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a restrictive New York gun law in a major ruling for gun rights.

     The justices’ 6-3 decision is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities – including New York, Los Angeles and Boston – and elsewhere. About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade.

     The ruling comes as Congress is actively working on gun legislation following recent mass shootings in Texas, New York and California.

     Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

     Just in case you haven’t seen any in a while, this is good news. What it isn’t is a guarantee that states hostile to the right to keep and bear arms will honor the decision, and the right it protects, in practical terms. Administrative processes can be made so painful and expensive that they deter effectively everyone from exercising their rights.

     For example, for some time now, the state has gotten away with a protracted waiting period before an applicant for a carry permit is notified of its decision. Here on Long Island, it’s averaged about a year. There’s no reason that period could not be made longer, effectively vitiating the right by administrative means.

     Alternately, the state could impose a huge fee for the permit. That’s been the case in New York City for some time – and there’s no reason that fee could not be escalated to the skies. The rationale would be the “costs” of maintaining the permits and the bureaucracy that records and tracks them.

     Finally, we can rest assured that anti-gun states and locales will impose fresh terms on the issuance of gun permits. Those terms could easily be made vague enough to support arbitrary denials. “Good moral character” — ? “No history of mental illness” — ? Meaning what? How long and expensive a court fight would most permit-seekers be willing to undergo in pursuit of their right?

     So yes: good news. But the Omnipotent State is clever and elusive. It seldom accepts a setback passively. Watch New York’s next moves in this regard. I certainly will.


Skip to comment form

    • Dan on June 23, 2022 at 3:12 PM

    How many troops does the SCOTUS have to enforce this ruling?   NONE!  Which means that states !ike New York will simply ignore this ruling and continue to violate rights with impunity.

    1. You’ve expressed my principal fear.

    • John Fisher on June 24, 2022 at 5:00 AM

    Nullification of Supreme Court orders by the blue states and executive orders by the red states will be signposts on the road to disunion.

  1. It would be interesting to know just how much of this New Solidarity and Courage stems from informal discussions among he members of the Supreme Court. Even RGB thought that Roe went too far. But, without other Justices willing to take the heat, her reservations would be useless.

    It takes time for the SC to change direction – it’s like watching a ship change course. Seemingly nothing happening at first, then, slowly, a new path becomes clear.

    I have long suspected that there was more willingness among the Supremes to dissent from the Leftist Plan than suspected. The nature of the office culture does make a difference, which is why it’s important to – gently – cultivate potential allies. Being the Firebrand is seldom the right choice in cohesive cultures – better to gently nudge people over time, and not try to “win” a quick victory. And, that is true among the clerks and other staff, as well as among the Justices.

    • Rick Happ on June 25, 2022 at 9:43 AM

    One way to attack the efforts of dems to inhibit 2A rights is via “disparate impact”. If a law is found to affect protected minority groups more than whites, then it’s supposed to be ruled against. In this case, raising fees extremely high would especially prohibit minorities from exercising their rights. Hoist the lefties on their own petard!

Comments have been disabled.