NRA Speaks On NYSRPA vs. Bruen Oral Arguments

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

On Wednesday, oral arguments took place on NYSRPA vs Bruen, a case that has the potential to have long-standing ramifications on carry laws in this country. One of the groups spearheading this is the NRA.

Later Wednesday, the NRA leadership offered up their thoughts on how things went:

“Police officers are being forced off their jobs.  Headlines remind us of sharp declines in criminal prosecutions.  Americans live in an increasingly dangerous world.  That’s why it’s vital for any law-abiding New Yorker who wishes to protect themselves and their families, outside their home, not be held hostage to the whim of any local official.  That is the essence of this case.”
                                                                                                       – Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president, NRA
“Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm. This is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment.  The NRA is grateful that the Supreme Court is tackling this critical issue. We are proud to be a part of this case, and we look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended.”
                                                                                                       – Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA
“It’s high time the Empire state to go after violent criminals instead of depriving its citizens’ of their basic Constitutional rights. The NYSRPA is proud to take the state to task on this egregious overstep, and we’re thankful to the NRA for their invaluable help and support in bringing this case to the highest court in the land. We look forward to the court’s opinion next year.”
                                                                                                    – Tom King, president, NYSRPA

So, can find absolutely nothing at all to disagree with her. I know, you’re shocked.

I will say that it was clear from the questioning that while it’s unlikely we’ll see all rules restricting the carrying of a firearm overturned, we will probably see something like “shall issue” becoming the law of the land.

The one Justice I’ve been concerned about, the swing vote as it were, was Chief Justice John Roberts. We’ve heard reports that he was a little squishy on the Second Amendment and was a major impediment to taking on cases since the McDonald decision. Yet look at this exchange from the oral argument transcript:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Oh, sure, and I can understand, for example, a regulation that says you can’t carry a gun into, you know, Giants Stadium, just because a lot of things are going on there and it may not be safe to have — for people to have guns.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves, that’s implicated when
you’re in a high-crime area. It’s not implicated when you’re out in the woods.

MS. UNDERWOOD: Well, I — I think it is implicated when you’re out in the woods. It’s just a different set of problems. I mean,
you’re —

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah, deer.

MS. UNDERWOOD: — you’re deserted there and you can’t — and law enforcement is not available to come to your aid if something does happen. But —

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, how many muggings take place in the forest?

The man is asking some valid questions.

Now, I don’t agree with him about how it is somehow acceptable not to be able to carry a firearm in Giant’s Stadium–while the stadium itself may be perfectly safe, the parking lot and all of the points between the stadium and your home aren’t. Keeping people disarmed from such an event also means they’re disarmed to and from said event. However, he’s right about how you’re more likely to need a firearm in New York City than deep in the woods somewhere in rural New York state.

And so it looks like the NRA is going to score a win on this one.

More importantly, though, people in states like New Jersey and California are going to score wins. I’ve talked to a lot of people from states like that who desperately want to carry, who feel they need to carry, but they’re not allowed to do so because of the laws on the books. When we get the ruling on this next year, I expect they’ll be able to get a permit.

I also expect to see crime begin to drop as criminals start hearing about more and more people carrying firearms.

 

Dec 08, 2021 12:30 PM ET