four Lifeless and four Injured With 2 ‘Shot within the Again of the Head’ in Second Chicago Mass Capturing in 4 Days

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 open a major amendment to the constitution, the first in a decade – and warn of an “arms apocalypse” given the court’s extremely conservative composition.

“This case is likely to pave the way for the Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to undercover public carrying and override many state and local restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in public,” writes Mark Joseph Stern of Slate .

In theory, that could mean not just an explosion of people with guns, but people with guns 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 Arms apocalypse is with us now. ”

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Corlett. Millhiser says the Supreme Court ruling on the case, which would come in about a year, “could change the judiciary’s understanding of the Second Amendment and destroy many of the country’s gun laws.”

In short, it could “make the NRA’s dreams come true”.

The case, as Millhiser describes it, centers on a 108-year-old New York State law that requires anyone wanting a gun to obtain authorization and show “right reason,” in other words, to prove he has a need for a gun there. Someone “who only wants to carry a gun because they generally believe that it would be useful if they ever become a victim of a violent crime cannot obtain a driver’s license”.

The Second Amendment has only 27 words: “A well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state, must not violate the right of the people to keep and carry arms.”

The 6-3 Trump Court will most likely nullify New York law.

Indeed, “writes Millhiser,” Corlett could potentially overturn more than a decade of judicial decisions interpreting the Second Amendment and prohibitively restrict the ability of lawmakers to reduce gun violence. “

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

This is what other legal experts say:

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. https://t.co/dHqdA4rWDY

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

Law Professor, Georgia State Law:

I have a bad feeling that there is going to be a really hideous originalism of the 14th Amendment on Gun Ownership and Reconstruction that will annoy me 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 justice to make it easier to own a gun than a car with no training in an environment where mass shootings often claim human 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 examining the history of gun laws and concluding that there is apparently no constitutional right to carry in public. Don’t expect his opinion to 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 that will end with decisions that reveal the true legacy of Trump’s four year tenure https://t.co/yPH4FvjEKR

– Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) April 26, 2021