Supreme Court refuses to hear NRA challenge to law limiting concealed-carry permits


When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled five years ago that a total ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., was unconstitutional, the majority opinion pointedly cautioned against drawing any absolutist interpretation of the decision.

Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most conservative member of the high court, said this:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms…

But, of course, the National Rifle Association and its stooges in Congress have pretended that the court said no such thing about the limits of Second Amendment rights. They have clung to the theory that gun rights are absolute and virtually unlimited.

But the high court signaled  today that it’s not yet ready, if it ever will be, to reject Scalia’s argument that Second Amendment rights have limits.

The story is HERE:

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would not weigh in on a major Second Amendment question that has divided the lower courts: May states bar or strictly limit the carrying of guns in public for self-defense?

The justices turned down a case concerning a New York State law that requires people seeking permits to carry guns in public to demonstrate that they have a special need for self-protection. In urging the justices to hear the case, the National Rifle Association called the law “a de facto ban on carrying a handgun outside the home.”

As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for declining to hear the case.

In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, upheld the law. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey have similar laws.



  1. Brian Opsahl

    I have said this numerious times but one more time will not hurt.
    You,We, cannot own or shoot a bazooka,or grenaids and it is no differant when you start comparing Military weaponry with what the public has access to.
    A well regulated militia was on the framers minds obviously they had no idea we would have this kind of firepower that an individual could buy and use against said State.

  2. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you liberals understand?

    The framers worded the 2nd Amendment clearly and concisely. It means exactly this (in modern terms):

    We need well trained citizen-soldiers to protect our society; the right of self-protection by deadly force is a basic human right, so we hereby prohibit government from restricting the rights of the people as to ownership and and carrying of weapons; not only for protection against criminals and foreign forces but also against our own government.

    It is the last part which is most important. An armed and trained populace is the ultimate guard against a repressive government – if failing at keeping it at bay, then at least allowing for its overthrow.

    If this seems quaint or old-fashioned, re-read and learn to understand world history. Tyrants flourish when unarmed and subservient societies cannot use violence back at their oppressors.

    Don’t think for a moment it can’t happen now or in the future. Freedom’s most basic price is vigilance.

  3. Jim Miller

    I believe the framers were referring to the militia’s ability and right to resist a tyrannical government. If the government is armed to the teeth, what is a militia to do to defend itself? Just a question…..

  4. RobertB

    @Brian: The founders DID know about automatic weapons (look up “Puckle Gun”) and yet they made no distinction about what arms were protected and what were not. Several of the founders were inventors; surely they knew that arms technology would progress. In the 1936 Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller, the court ruled that military weapons were the MOST constitutionally protected — and that was with the case being tried in absentia. If anyone had shown up to defend Miller and point out that short-barreled shotguns were used in the first world war, the 1934 NFA would probably have been overturned.

    What the founders perhaps didn’t foresee (when writing the 1st Amendment) was the Internet, where any idiot with a keyboard could broadcast their nonsense to the whole world. Lucky for you, I guess 😉

  5. Brian Opsahl

    Yea, I noticed you never mentioned that bazooka thing hmmm the framers who were inventers…really..!!

    You can’t own a bazooka for a reason and the US Government says you can’t own or posses that military style weapon ….who are you crappin. The US Government certainly can and doe’s infringe on that so called right.

    This Liberal owns alot of those weapons and I have absolutly have no problem with any kind of background check ….just as the NRA doesn’t seem to have a problem with them …they are demanding them for these special school guards they want…right..!!

  6. Craig Knauss

    RE RobertB’s “Puckle gun”

    per Wikipedia:

    “Design and patent
    It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier’s musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.

    Production and operational use
    The Puckle Gun drew few investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces, mostly because British gunsmiths at the time could not easily make the weapon’s many complicated components. One newspaper of the period sarcastically observed, following the business venture’s failure, that the gun has “only wounded those who hold shares therein”.”

    Your “automatic” flintlock Puckle gun could achieve a whopping 9 rounds per minute, as a prototype. And apparently it never went into production. So what’s your point? The Tommy gun, which was widely produced, could achieve 600 rounds per minute – minimum, and up to 1500 rounds per minute – maximum. That’s part of the reason it was included in the NFA ban.

    Now what was that comment about idiots and keyboards?

  7. Brian Opsahl

    “ouch” I bet he didn’t think you would look that up…!
    They cannot show where the 2nd amendment is not in use …they have no argument against the bazooka,tommy gun or other previously banned weapons…none..!!

  8. RobertB

    I mentioned the Puckle gun not because it was practical, but because it was an automatic weapon that predated the Bill of Rights and the founders would certainly have been aware of it — and that weapons systems evolve. I’m not sure what your preoccupation is with bazookas (okay, it IS a fun word to say) but they are not illegal, and neither are Thompsons. They are extremely expensive because they must be registered and the registry has been closed since 1986. So only rich people politically-connected like Chuck Schumer can afford them — is that what you want?

    In the 1700’s and 1800’s, the most powerful weapons of war were warships and cannons. Both were in private ownership. This is acknowledged in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, where Congress is given authority to deputize private warships for government service (letters of marque and reprisal.) I could buy or build a cannon right now, legally, without any type of permits or anything.

    I guess I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

  9. Brian Opsahl

    We have thousands of weapons you can’t have because the Government says you can’t …thousands, and i’m thankful for that. After reading some of the posts on this blog by folks who are all consumed with there guns you almost get the feeling most of those types want some kind of confrontation with our Government…tell me i’m wrong…!

  10. Craig Knauss


    My father owned guns, my father-in-law (combat vet) owned guns, my brother (vet) owns guns, all three of my brothers-in-law (2 are combat vets) own guns, and a whole bunch of my friends and neighbors (including combat vets) own guns. I have never heard one of them say, “Man, do I need a fully automatic assault rifle.”

    Why is that?

  11. You’re wrong.

  12. RobertB

    ” I have never heard one of them say, ‘Man, do I need a fully automatic assault rifle.’”

    Because full-auto is not very practical and they are very expensive to feed? What Brian and others are trying to do is intentionally confuse semi-automatic guns with machine-guns. You can’t have a machine-gun, therefore you shouldn’t have… (fill in the blank with whatever they are trying to ban at the moment)

  13. Brian Opsahl

    Why is it against the law to own or use a machine gun without some kind of gunsmith or special permit. When guys like Baby face Nelson or John Dillinger used them against our Police the Government stepped in to HELP put a stop to that. remember …!!

    What is wrong with putting this to a vote and let America decide…you know majority wins …rule of law..!!

  14. Brian Opsahl

    Brian is not trying to confuse anybody, Brian is trying to get some lunk heads to understand that if you wish to buy a weapon that can kill multipul people in a few seconds you need to have your background checked for your mental status or whether your prone to beating your wife or others in violance. Or letting you buy these kinds of weapons so you can sell them to somebody that cannot, or getting them at some gun show…..thats it ..!!

    I own a semi auto AR and I can tell you this for certain, they will almost do just as much damadge or more than full auto because of the pure accuracy. Who trying to kid here..?

Leave a Reply

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