Does the Constitution protect the right to carry a firearm outside the home? The U.S. Supreme Court is set to answer that question by next year. On Monday, April 26, the Court announced it would hear the case of New York residents challenging their state law, which gives government officials complete discretion over who gets permission to carry. New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, backed by the National Rifle Association will be argued in the fall.
Article by Scott D. Cosenza from Liberty Nation.
New York is one of the worst states in the union when it comes to gun laws. The state requires would-be holders of a license to carry concealed to jump through innumerable hoops and expenses, and the last one is often impossible. In New York and a few other hold-out states, the final call on whether an applicant is issued a license or permit depends on whether a state or county employee thinks it’s a good idea. That is what’s at issue here for those in these reddest of states.
‘Shall Issue’ Comes To Court?
Since the 1980s, more and more states have gone from may issue permitting to shall issue. If you present yourself at the DMV having passed all the tests and with proper ID, you are entitled to the driver’s license. Laws and regulations require the issuance of the driver’s license to all qualified applicants. Imagine the same setup, where you have to convince someone at the DMV you need to drive but the DMV clerk could simply rule against you without the right to appeal. Such is the case with permission to carry guns in the red states on the map shown. The state may issue permits to qualified people, but it doesn’t have to.
✔️ Boost your immune system with Nutraceutical by Dr. Zev Zelenko
✔️ Beat supply chain issues and future pharmaceutical tyranny with 5 Antibiotics Delivered to Your Home
✔️ Be ready to help yourself and your family with the World’s Best Med Kit
So, celebrities and politicians often get licenses, but Jane Q. Public can pound sand. That may change thanks to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s refusal to exit the Court during the Obama administration.
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge against a restrictive New York City gun law just last year because the city quickly changed the law before the case could be heard. Justices hadn’t made a big ruling on a Second Amendment case since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. It ruled 5-4 that states, as well as the federal government, are subject to the Second Amendment. Now, gun-rights advocates think they have a winning hand at the high court and are pressing forward.
Justice Clarence Thomas was moved to dissent from the bench when the Court refused the New York City case last year. He said:
“In several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so.” He continued, “One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this court’s review.”
Thomas will get his wish now and with a decidedly more conservative set of justices.
Ruth’s Replacement To The Rescue
In a twist of irony that must make gun-rights proponents smile, Justice Ginsburg famously rejected requests to resign during the Obama administration. She complained that, had she done so, she would not be replaced with someone as liberal. The left wasn’t worried about a choice between her and whoever Obama could get through, it was between her and who a Republican might appoint.
Justice Ginsburg was in the dissent in McDonald and would certainly vote against the would-be gun carriers in this case. She was quite hostile, judicially, to the notion that gun rights were individual rights, akin to others found in the Bill of Rights. She was, however, replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, who is the hope of conservatives. Justice Barrett’s jurisprudence is still up in the air as a new member of the Court, but it’s a sure bet she will be better for gun rights than Justice Ginsburg.
How much better remains to be seen, but we will keep you up to date here at LibertyNation.com as the case progresses.
Read more from Scott D. Cosenza.
Will America-First News Outlets Make it to 2023?
Things are looking grim for conservative and populist news sites.
There’s something happening behind the scenes at several popular conservative news outlets. 2021 was bad, but 2022 is proving to be disastrous for news sites that aren’t “playing ball” with the corporate media narrative. It’s being said that advertisers are cracking down, forcing some of the biggest ad networks like Google and Yahoo to pull their inventory from conservative outlets. This has had two major effects. First, it has cooled most conservative outlets from discussing “taboo” topics like Pandemic Panic Theater, voter fraud, or The Great Reset. Second, it has isolated those ad networks that aren’t playing ball.
Certain topics are anathema for most ad networks. Speaking out against vaccines or vaccine mandates is a certain path to being demonetized. Highlighting voter fraud in the 2020 and future elections is another instant advertising death penalty. Throw in truthful stories about climate change hysteria, Critical Race Theory, and the border crisis and it’s easy to understand how difficult it is for America-First news outlets to spread the facts, share conservative opinions, and still pay the bills.
Without naming names, I have been told of several news outlets who have been forced to either consolidate with larger organizations or who have backed down on covering certain topics out of fear of being “canceled” by the ad networks. I get it. This is a business for many of us and it’s not very profitable. Those of us who do this for a living are often barely squeaking by, so loss of additional revenue can often mean being forced to make cuts. That means not being able to cover the topics properly. Its a Catch-22: Tell the truth and lose the money necessary to keep telling the truth, or avoid the truth and make enough money to survive. Those who have chosen survival simply aren’t able to spread the truth properly.
We will never avoid the truth. The Lord will provide if it is His will. Our job is simply to share the facts, spread the Gospel, and educate as many Americans as possible while exposing the forces of evil.
To those who have the means, we ask that you please donate. We have options available now, but there is no telling when those options will cancel us. We have our GivingFuel page. There have been many who have been canceled by PayPal, but for now it’s still an option. Your generosity is what keeps these sites running and allows us to get the truth to the masses. We’ve had great success in growing but we know we can do more with your assistance.
Thank you, and God Bless!
All ORIGINAL content on this site is © 2021 NOQ Report. All REPUBLISHED content has received direct or implied permission for reproduction.
With that said, our content may be reproduced and distributed as long as it has a link to the original source and the author is credited prominently. We don’t mind you using our content as long as you help out by giving us credit with a prominent link. If you feel like giving us a tip for the content, we will not object!
JD Rucker – EIC