Concealed Carry

SCOTUS Hears Second Amendment Case — What You Need to Know

The front view of the Supreme Court building

On November 3, the Supreme Court took up a blockbuster Second Amendment case. The case is known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It could easily be the defining firearms case of this generation. At the heart of the case was whether states have the right to restrict individuals from carrying concealed handguns outside the home for self-defense. Was it a win for the Second Amendment or gun control groups? Read on and we will break it down.

It is important to note, that a Supreme Court hearing is not like a TV show. Questions are often delivered in the form of comment. There is not a single line of questioning from a single lawyer. Court watchers try to look between the lines or read the tea leaves. In truth, we will not know how the court will rule until next Spring.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association logo
A challenge by the NYSRPA to New York’s restrictive concealed carry license laws went before the Supreme Court. This is could well be the defining Second Amendment case of the decade.

Reports from court watchers seemed positive, with most believing the questions from the Justices during oral arguments showed strong skepticism against New York’s laws and 110-year practice of restricting people from carrying concealed handguns outside the home. Of course, the court watchers I am mentioning are all pro Second Amendment, so…

The Case and the Court

It’s been more than a decade since the Supreme Court has handed down a ruling on a major Second Amendment case. The difference? Today, due to the efforts of President Trump and the previous congress, the High Court is believed to be much more conservative-leaning, and by most accounts, friendlier to the pro Second Amendment cause.

That does not mean the High Court will automatically hand down a pro 2A decision. However, the court does have the opportunity to reexamine the scope and expand the right to keep and bear arms beyond the 2008 Heller decision.

Paul Clement argued on behalf of the people and gun rights groups challenging the New York regulations. New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood (Boo-hiss) stood for the State of New York’s position.

Also, arguing in favor of the gun control measure was Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher. Fletcher argued that for centuries the New York lawmakers have protected the public by passing ‘reasonable’ regulations as opposed to the contention that it has stripped the individual’s right to self-defense, unreasonably.

“Carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental, constitutional right.”

Precedent or history plays a major role in most court decisions and today’s hearing was no different. The “liberal-leaning” justices questioned whether New York’s laws — seven other states have similar laws — were ahistorical (lacking historical perspective or context). This was primarily aimed at determining whether Clement’s arguments could withstand the pressure of an examination of the historical record. For example, certain states have lax gun laws today, but had strict and prohibitive laws at times in their histories.

“It seems to me that I don’t know how I can pass through all that history — well, without you, sort of making it up — and saying there’s a right to control states that has never been exercised in the entire history of the United States — as to how far they can go and say, this poses a danger,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Clement sought to compare his client’s restriction from obtaining concealed carry permits to obtaining a hunting license.

“One way to think about it is we’re asking that the regime work the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting,” Clement said.

“When my clients go in and ask for a license to carry a concealed weapon for hunting purposes, what they have to tell the state is they have an intent to go hunting. They don’t have to say, ‘I have a really good reason to go hunting.’ They don’t have to say, ‘I have a better reason to go hunting than anybody else in my general community.’”

“And the difference of course, you have a concealed weapon to go hunting, you’re out with an intent to shoot say a deer or rabbit which has its problems.” But when you’re carrying for self-defense, “you want to carry a concealed weapon,” he added.

Restrictions and Sensitive Areas

Remember, it was the late Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in Heller declaring that the “central component” of the Second Amendment was not a “well-regulated Militia” but rather “the inherent right of self-defense.” Scalia also wrote:

“The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

~Justice Antonin Scalia

Scalia championed the Second Amendment, but also cautioned that the right to carry a concealed handgun could be limited in places such as schools and courtrooms.

Chief Justice John Roberts touched on this point by asking Clement about restrictions on public carry in places that serve alcohol or venues such as football stadiums. 

Justice Elena Kagan piled on with questions about prohibitions in New York subways and college campuses in the city. Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the chorus when she asked about prohibitions on guns in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. 

“If you concede, as I think the historical record requires you to, that states did outlaw guns in sensitive places, can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place, because now we’ve seen you know, people are on top of each other?” Barrett said. “We’ve had experience with violence. So, we’re making a judgment it’s a sensitive place.”

Decisions, Decisions… How to Decide

Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the New York law requires applicants to have “good moral character” but that circumstances in society can change around them. Basically, Justice Breyer was saying a person could start out good, but due to the circumstances or alcohol or some other factor, lose that “good moral standing” — even if only temporarily.

If you have ever watched or listened to a Supreme Court hearing, you may have noticed a peculiar line of questioning from the justices to the lawyers asking for an argument on how the court should rule. This was the case when Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Clement questions that got at how sweeping the court’s ruling could be.

Gorsuch prompted Clement to elaborate on the use of balancing tests — opposed to historical analysis and examinations of tradition and text — in reviewing public carry cases. 

The question allowed Clement to argue that history, tradition, and text should be the analysis lower courts use in any case concerning carrying a firearm for self-defense outside of the home. Clement also argued that if the court were to instead use a balancing test, that it would use a “strict scrutiny” test, which would set the bar very high for a state’s regulation to be upheld.

Underwood’s Defense

New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood began with a simple claim that “New York is not an outlier in the extent to which the state restricts the ability to carry firearms in public.”

The justices took issue with New York’s seemingly unequal treatment of individuals in rural versus urban areas. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that one of the individuals who had brought the challenge had done so specifically because he was denied an unrestricted license to carry although he lived in a rural area. Chief Justice John Roberts also took issue with this point questioning whether the rural vs. urban framework made sense. He told Underwood that the need for self-defense may be greater in an urban area than in a rural one.

“It seems to me what you’re saying is that’s [areas with dense populations] probably the last place that someone’s going to get a permit to carry a gun. How’s that?”
~ Chief Justice John Roberts

Underwood acknowledged that the risk may be different in a city than in a rural area, but countered that the consideration of public safety may be different as well.

Justice Thomas added, “It’s one thing to talk about Manhattan or an NYU campus. It’s another to talk about rural upstate New York.”

Alito and Kavanaugh — How Does the State Know Whether Someone Is in Danger?

Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to argue from a position of empathy for the right to self-defense. Grilling New York Solicitor General Underwood, the justices challenged whether it was appropriate for New York to second guess the applicant’s claim of a “need” to carry a firearm for self-defense. 

Justice Alito used the example of janitors or nurses who work late hours and might want to carry a firearm for self-protection. There’s a substantial number of people carrying illegal guns in the city, Alito said, “But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned… no, they can’t be armed.”

Kavanaugh continued by asking Underwood, “Why isn’t it good enough to say, ‘I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself?’” 

The line of questioning set Underwood back on her heels — unstable footing at a minimum. Pivoting like a skilled politician, Underwood attempted to deflect the justices’ questions by arguing that this case had not been framed around those issues. Underwood challenged, that if that was the concern, the matter should be remanded back to the lower courts for consideration. 

Barrett to Underwood: Was Heller Correctly Decided?

Justice Barrett put Underwood in an unenviable position when she asked the solicitor general whether the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller — which affirmed an individual’s private right to keep guns in their home — was rightly decided. 

Uncomfortable and unwilling to undermine her own position through additional questions or debate, Underwood gave as little ground as possible by admitting she was “quite content” to treat the decision as having been rightly decided.

Justice Barrett seized on the crack she had opened in the solicitor’s defense and asked whether the court could then depart from the interpretation of history laid out in Heller


In truth, the conclusion is that we do not know much more than we did before the case started. The arguments went on for about two hours, although it was slated for less than an hour. That shows the weight the matter carries with the justices.

Arguments closed with Clement railing on the potential for unequal application of the law due to the “discretion” the New York law doles out to officials to determine whether guns can be carried by individuals based on a perceived need. This fact was certainly not lost on Justice Kavanaugh.

Clement pointed out, the courts had determined that “discretion” had harmed individuals due to its unequal application and prevented individuals from exercising their constitutional Second Amendment rights or face punishment if they did.

Discretion “has a real-world cost.”

Discretion “has a real-world cost,” Clement concluded.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (38)

  1. The Constitution does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It acknowledges the right, and imposes “shall not be infringed”. That means the government may not penetrate (violate) even the outer boundary (the fringe) of such right. An individual has the right to be armed. The government may impose the harshest of sanctions, against anyone “mis-using” arms, even allow violators to be shot-on-sight, by citizens. The right of possession remains. You may have be armed, EXCEPT . . .
    The qualifying term “except” , is infringement.



  3. “The court has not looked at the literal meaning of the words today, but the reasoning or principles that the Framers used and what it meant to them. ~Dave”

    But if you read what the founding fathers said about the Second Amendment, it is clear that what they meant by “shall not be infringed” was literally “shall not be infringed.”

    I know we pretty much agree on all this, my only point is that when the Supreme Court is so clearly wrong, their wrong decisions should not be accepted. They have been a politically charged branch for far too long. Hopefully that’s starting to change, but the preservation of our rights rests upon ourselves above anyone else, including the Supreme Court.

  4. I live in one of these flyover states and I’ll tell you right now that tree it look like it was going to assault me. I carry my gun loaded perfectly legal I’ve never had an opportunity to shoot anyone with it no reason to because an armed Society is a polite Society. But now in New York City that’s a different animal altogether Portland Los Angeles San Francisco Houston the list goes on and on Chicago Milwaukee Detroit those are cities that I would not want to walk through on armed. But hey I know you can buy a house in Detroit for $5. Yeah sign me up for a hundred of those not

  5. Out of curiosity, how would you reconcile “shall not be infringed” with cannot be regulated or “unlimited?” ~Dave

    How can you say a regulation is not an infringement? Why should I, as a law abiding citizen, not have a firearm when I pick up my kids from school? It makes no sense. If I wanted to shoot up a school the law would not stop me.

    1. Like I said, I am 100% in agreement. It’s not the law-abiding we have to worry about and laws are a moot point to anyone intent or breaking the law. I do not believe in exclusion zones.

      The Supreme Court is tasked with ruling whether or not a case or principle is constitutional. The court’s opinion can only be nullified by an amendment to the Constitution, which by design is a very high bar. In the Heller decision, Just Scalia wrote, “The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…” Scalia also wrote, “…the ‘central component’ of the Second Amendment was not a ‘well-regulated Militia’ but rather “the inherent right of self-defense.”

      In the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Whether or not you or I believe the Second Amendment is all encompassing and should not be limited in any way, the High Court has consistently disagreed, even when ruling in favor of expansion to the definition of the Second Amendment. In Miller, the court also held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

      This all brings back not to my opinion or yours, but that of the Court and it defines “Shall not be infringed.” The court has not looked at the literal meaning of the words today, but the reasoning or principles that the Framers used and what it meant to them. ~Dave

  6. The reads available here are from 2A supporters and I suppose rightly so. Frankly I wonder why the simple approach is not being addressed here. The 2nd is not a mystery. It says that mankind is untrustworthy to its motives and actions, and certainly the Federal Government more than testifies to that one. From the street thug and to the one in the White House, all are untrustworthy. Any control over both require force. Madison saw it. Most do. Check and balance does not work when a government activily seeks to disarm its citizens. Finally, show me any place that disarming the nations people did not result in tryanny. Ain’t gonna happen.

  7. I am curious to see how this plays out. This whole country was based on and rightfully so, providing so called Bill of Rights. The intent of that was to Protect US citizens from over reach by the government. There is a reason why the first and second amendment are so important to the long term survival of freedom in the United States. If the average citizens can not count on these rights and the Supreme Court will not protect them. The concept of a free nation will not exist for long and we are definitely at that point look around. The fact that this case is even in front of the Supreme Court in the first is a joke. If citizens can not count on the court system in the first place bye bye America. Let’s see!!!!

  8. Self defense should be recognized as a human right, not just a right for this nation. Yet the United Nations has pressured the USA to join its “no guns” policy as well as President Biden. My concern is that the governments of the world seem to have lost trust in their people as much as the people have lost trust in their governments.

  9. Do they have a different copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than we do? How can you read “the right if the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and come to the conclusion that the right is not unrestricted?

    I’m sorry, but any justice who thinks infringement is Constitutional is not qualified to be a justice.

    1. Josh,

      I hear what you are saying and I agree with your core statement. However, even Justice Antonin Scalia defined the Second Amendment as a right to self-defense, but not an unlimited right. For example, taking it to an illogical extreme, you could not own a nuclear weapon or carry a hand grenade for self-defense. Scalia outlined that certain places such schools or courtrooms could be exempted “for the public good” (I am paraphrasing not quoting him directly…). Scalia did not believe that infringe equalled “without any limit whatsoever” much like the First Amendment has certain limitations and interpretations. Out of curiosity, how would you reconcile “shall not be infringed” with cannot be regulated or “unlimited?” ~Dave

  10. Personally I wonder why us Second Amendment supporters are being discriminated against. A criminal neither needs to ask permission or pay a fee to exercise their Second Amendment rights and criminals do not care what state, building or place they carry. Law abiding citizens here in Oregon, need to be background checked, finger printed and pay a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right that is supposed to be guaranteed by our creator in our Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights. As long as there are criminals our right to protect ourselves, our family and our society should encompass every space we as Americans have a need or want to traverse…

  11. Well……. the second amendment is an amendment just like all the others. There is no reason why you should ever need to get a permit to exercise the right to carry, when no permit is required to exercise any of the other rights guaranteed by the bill of rights. This is fundamentalfor all amendments.


  13. Legal ownership… what exactly does that mean? According to the gov’t I’m a legal owner but I can’t carry in NYC, Illinois, New England or California?
    Can they all just fall off the map already? I mean really… this should NOT be a question according to the 2A.

  14. Who wrote this article ? Why does the article not start out by stating what the central point of the case is ? An article should not make me have to go search for other articles that more clearly define the case as it stands before the supreme court before I can successfully navigate this article. I am a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment, but I am also a believer in clearly laying out the case… the full case. Don’t be one sided. Don’t try to decide for me. If you believe your argument is strong, then present ALL the facts, not just part of them.

    Poorly written article !

  15. Of the twenty-seven words contained in our Second Amendment of which our founding forefathers were absolutely magnificent and incredibly smart and didn’t write it in “lawyer-ease,” nowhere do I see any caveats allowing for the feral government, any government state or local the ability or responsibility to restrict my God given and constitutionally protected right of self preservation. There are no clauses allowing for background checks, waiting periods, psychological profiling, permitting, or the registration of any firearm to anyone! Along with the constitution were added the Militia Acts of 1792 which addressed the ammunition issue.

    Most of our elected politicians in Government don’t recognize the Clause “the right of the “people” to keep and bear (carry) arms ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ or are aware of the Militia Ac ts of 1792. However, I do see plenty of elected officials who would just as soon try and TAKE our God given right by usurpative fiat while at the same time refusing to abide by their oaths of office.

    We go back to the simple question of “What part of “shall not be infringed” do these Leftopathic Corruptocratic Globalists not understand”? Any law restricting ownership of any firearm written since 1791 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore technically unenforceable ! Guns have but two enemies, RUST and Politicians!!!

    As for the NICS Universal background checks, They are the opposite of being effective and a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s already a crime to sell a firearm to somebody who is not legally allowed to own a firearm, whether one goes through a background check or not, that is already a crime.

    The NICS background check database is “faulty” and “racially biased,” in that minorities are more likely to share a surname with someone else who may have a criminal record.
    Consider for decades now our Bill of rights has been under attack. Again I want to reference the Amendment that the framers intended to guarantee compliance of the other nine amendments, our second amendment, as does the regulation of Ammunition sales which in effect is a TAX on Law abiding citizens exercising their rights under the second Amendment and Militia acts of 1792!.

    I am curious to find out just how many politicians would be willing to place the same caveats as they have on our Second Amendment or any other amendment e.g. file a form and wait several days so one can exercise their first Amendment right to exercise free speech – file a form and wait several days to exercise their third amendment rights protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure. Or the ninth amendment that states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, in the Bill of Rights even though they are not listed. Meaning they can be violated. The proverbial political foot is in the door, and APATHY from the American people is allowing the door to usurpation to be thrown WIDE open as if it wasn’t there.

    Regarding Red flag gun confiscation laws; they violate the Fourth Amendment.
    If the government takes somebody’s God-given rights because they think that a person might someday commit a crime, then we enter into the realm of dystopian science fiction movies. Whether one is an ardent defender of the Second Amendment or not, all of us should be concerned about the implications of the Fourth Amendment and due process. The fourth amendment is a foundation of our country.”

    Democrats don’t care about keeping people safe. For Democrats, this issue is about emotion. They’re appealing to emotion and not reason. If they were appealing to reason, they would know ways to keep people safe and that, to quote a book, ‘more guns equal less crime.’ But also for the Democrats, it’s about paying back their donors. Soros and Bloomberg are going to want to get what they paid for, and what they paid for is disarming our society.”

    No one but God can dictate policy to me and my family and I will do whatever it takes to secure my liberty and the liberty of my fellow patriots. Stand in my way try and usurp my rights or otherwise enslave me, you should be prepared to back your actions up with your life as I am prepared to do likewise!!
    There comes a time when you have to stand for the Constitution or die by legislation one usurpative bill at a time.

    I will offer this little but important lesson in history – The reason Americans should be aggressively fighting against gun control is because armed people will not willingly load themselves in boxcars or FEMA camps!

    “Those who fear your gun do so because they know they are guilty of things for which they should be shot”- Kevin B Shearer

    “Laws forbidding the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria

    If one refuses to fight for what one has then one shouldn’t cry over what they lost!!!

    Libertas est, non liber – mercedem mihi portionem substantiae sumptus
    Libertas inaestimabilis res est
    Celer Silens Mortalis

  16. It’s oddly self serving for the government to argue that it has the ability to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of the people to bare arms given that the government itself is the very opponent the second amendment envisioned itself protecting people against by its writers.

  17. When seconds count and the police are minutes away should be argument enough to give people their unalienable right to protect themselves. How can Texas have such a good understanding of their rights compared to Maryland whom have no realistic reasoning for it’s bias and liberal leaning laws. Criminals don’t care or abide by the laws and the law abiding citizens pay the price.

  18. First, I think that it’s a very sad day, where even the idea of allowing a state to make their own restrictions to the Second Amendment has come to the SCOTUS. It’s truly a condemnation of the world we live in today.

    However, all we have to do is look at all the gun violence in our country, and how it seems to be escalating exponentially. But, there are so many ways that it can be measured and those numbers to be skewed to the benefit of any agenda. Only a thorough investigation into the facts, and presenting that raw data should be used in any argument.

    Beyond all of the arguing, there are some basic truths. Gun violence is rising, But, the use of firearms in the commission of a crime is only being done by those whose intent is to commit a crime. Not by those whose intent is to protect themselves or to prevent the commission of a crime. To create a law that prevents law abiding citizens from arming themselves will only give greater freedom to those who are in illegal possession of a firearm, to commit those violent crimes. To quote Lois L’Amour; “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

    I live in Texas. This state recently passed ‘Constitutional Carry’. Here, anyone who can legally own a firearm can carry a it, concealed or not. The only places where this is prohibited is in establishments that have signs quoting the exact legal restrictions prominently displayed near the entrances. The Constitutional Carry law was just passed this year. Only time will tell if this proves to be a deterrent to gun violence, or a proponent.

    The United States does not rank the highest in the world, regarding the number of gun related deaths. Nor the lowest. We’re somewhere in the middle. An interesting correlation is that the countries that have higher numbers are also those countries with the highest number of crimes tied to illegal drugs.

    I believe that if the US would focus on the problem of illegal drugs in this country, gun ownership and the legal right to carry a gun would not be so much of an issue.

  19. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but if the Court decides in favor of the defendant New Jersey will fall eventually, and that’s what I’m surely hoping for. I thought I would never witness the Court hearing cases like this in my lifetime so I suppose there is some sliver or possibility that someday I may be able to legally open or concealed carry in my whacky state.

    1. Chris,

      You make a good point. This case will certainly has the potential to affect so many gun owners in the eight states that currently have similar restrictions. I t will also set precedent in future case in lower courts. ~Dave

  20. Regardless of the decision, I am amazed at how brilliant the framers of our Constitution and three branches of government were. I am proud to be an American where we have processes of judicial review as noted in the article. Times have changed considerably since 1776 and 1787 but our Constitution since the Bill of Rights has not changed much-a testimony to the quality of our form of government and Constitution. Our duties as noted by our founders are to be informed without a conformation bias and to participate. Without an informed citizenry, democracy fails. Thanks for helping to keep us informed.

    1. Chuck,
      It always an honor and pleasure. Thank you for taking a few minutes to read the article and reply. ~Dave

  21. I wanted to read some articles by some of the more gun ‘unfriendly’ news outlets as the author did say his column was based on the views of pro gun observers. First off, it does seem the court did view the restrictions in a harsh light. To me Justice Roberts’, who has been a middle of the road type of Justice when it comes to rulings, comments and questions where quite to the point. He said “You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment right are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.” Justice Kavanaugh, in response to Barbara Underwood’s, lawyer for New York, statement that that an applicant’s claims “are examined by a licensing officer,” stated “that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right”. It does look like New York ‘pay to play’ licensing scheme will be overruled. It will just be to how broad or narrow the ruling will be.

    1. Billy,
      I agree. In researching for the article, I read plenty of coverage from both sides. When you watch a criminal or civil trial, the lawyer has a line of questions to build foundation and eventually lead the person on the stand to a particular place. With the Supreme Court, it is very different. The manner in which the justices ask questions is quite different. At times they show their hand with a question, and other times they seem to tee up just the opposite and let counsel make the argument for them. Either way, we never really seem to know until after the verdict is handed down and legal scholars try to forensically guess after the fact.
      Personally, I think there are more originalists on the court and the latest justices to join the court have records on Second Amendment cases that should be favorable to our cause. ~Dave

  22. Interesting article. I have another question, several states have a non conceal law in that anyone can open carry, only those that want to conceal carry need a conceal weapon permit. How does this play in this argument?

    1. Not being a lawyer… I do not believe this would affect constitutional carry. Typically, the justices only make a decision regarding the scope of the case. Since this ruling, if favorable to the 2A, would only deal with the unequal application of who can get a CCW and having to show “proper cause,” I do not believe open carry would be addressed. ~Dave

  23. One thing that seems to be going unsaid is the memory of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, last year. Which case was made Moot when NYC did the cursory song and dance and changed the law just long enough to get the case dismissed, and then changed it back.

    No doubt the justices are mindful of their little trick, and will act more decidedly to put a stop to that non sense.8

  24. After reading this article, at this point it seems that the Supreme Court justices are arguing among themselves and can’t even start to come to some sort of an agreement or conclusion. Time will tell. I only hope that they come to a favorable agreement and stop NY from continuing to disrespect the 2nd Amendment while almost, but not all states, honor the Constitution and recognize the right for self protection inside and outside of the home and concealed carry regardless where you live. The saying “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” doesn’t save innocent lives.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.