Authorized Consultants Ship Warnings After Supreme Courtroom Decides to Take Up Large Second Modification Case

Might make it easier to have a gun than a car

Legal experts are issuing warnings after the US Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would take up an important second amendment, the first in ten years – and warn of an “arms apocalypse” given the extremely conservative composition of the court.

“This case is likely to pave the way to the Supreme Court, which declares a constitutional right to concealed public transportation and overrides many state and local restrictions on the ability to carry concealed weapons in public,” wrote Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern .

In theory, this could mean an explosion of not just people carrying guns, but people carrying guns that you can’t see – until it’s too late. It is literally the Republican Party’s dream.

Vox’s Ian Millhiser warns “The Supreme Court Weapons apocalypse is on us now. ”

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Corlett. According to Millhiser, the Supreme Court ruling in the case, due in about a year, “could change the judiciary’s understanding of the second amendment and devastate many of the country’s gun laws.”

In short, he says, “could make the dreams of the NRA come true.”

The case, as Millhiser describes it, centers on a 108-year-old New York State law that stipulates that anyone who wants a gun must obtain authorization and, in other words, prove “the correct cause” in order to prove that he has a need for it. Someone “who only wants to carry a weapon because they generally believe that it would be useful if they were ever a victim of a violent crime cannot obtain a license.”

The second amendment contains only 27 words: “A well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be violated.”

The 6-3 “Trump Court” will most likely crush New York law.

Indeed, “writes Millhiser,” Corlett could potentially cut back more than a decade of court decisions interpreting the second amendment and place prohibitive limits on the legislature’s ability to reduce gun violence. “

To paraphrase Oprah, “And you get a gun, and you get a gun, and you get a gun.”

Some other legal experts say the following:

Former DOJ Public Prosecutor:

Get ready to see exactly what a 6-3 Republican Supreme Court means in this case, deciding whether people have a personal right to carry a hidden gun around town while walking around

– Michael J. Stern (@ MichaelJStern1), April 26, 2021

Law Professor, Georgia State Law:

I have a bad feeling that there will be some really cruel originalism in Amendment 14 on gun ownership and reconstruction that will annoy me for next year.

– Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) April 26, 2021

Former US attorney, now MSNBC / NBC Legal Analyst and Law Professor:

Given the views of Trump’s judges, this case is likely to advance the case law to make it easier to have a gun than an unpanned car in an environment where mass shootings often cost lives. So not exactly the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment provides. https://t.co/4cpPJ286xp

– Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) April 26, 2021

Slate’s Stern (quoted above), author of “American Justice 2019: The Roberts Court Arrives”:

Just last month, Conservative Judge Jay Bybee drafted an extraordinary 127-page statement taking up the history of gun laws and concluding that there are clearly no constitutional rights to public wear. Do not expect that his opinion will prevail at SCOTUS. https://t.co/SuPl6w2tj3

– Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 26, 2021

Attorney, Political and Legal Reporter at Fox5 in New York:

SCOTUS ‘next term could very well include major guns, abortion and positive action cases ending with decisions that reveal the true legacy of Trump’s four-year tenure. Https://t.co/yPH4FvjEKR

– Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) April 26, 2021