The Supreme Court has another case that is being petitioned before them, hoping they’ll take up an issue associate. And that is the gun owners of America’s case in New York versus the concealed carry Improvement act. That’s the Antoniok case. And today they filed a writ assertion to say, hey, listen, Supreme Court, you guys and gals said that the Bruin decision was the law of the land when it comes to putting in check government agencies, government law, trying to delete the second amendment.

And of course, we know that Kathy Hoekel, immediately following the Bruin decision, got on camera despising the decision and then immediately went to work in trying to make the entire state, the entire city of New York, a sensitive place, right? Thus, people couldn’t carry their firearms there. Gun owners, America sued. And judge Sotoby, I always say his name wrong. I hope it’s so Toby, because I think I usually say sudoby.

And I know the Goa attorneys have told me it the right way. I hope it’s judge Sotoby who is a pro two a person. And sir, if you’re watching this, I hope I have your name right. But Judge Sotoby said that it was unconstitutional, the CCIA concealed carry Improvement act. But then I went to the second Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals, and they did what they do.

They intervened and put most a great portion of that law back into effect. What is still in effect and what is Goa looking to have the Supreme Court get after. That’s the good moral character clause. You don’t need to be of good moral character to have any other right in the Bill of Rights, any other right as an american citizen. In fact, there’s no restrictions on basically any other right.

I mean, there’s a couple of small ones, but nothing quite like gun ownership. The second one was having in person interviews with law enforcement before you could get your permit. I think it’s four character references as well as the training requirement. It went from 4 hours of training required in order to get your permit to 18 hours of training to get your paperwork approved for your permit. And then all of the horror stories you hear throughout New York about getting your permit.

That’s all. Still a thing, too. And here’s the question presented for review. Says moments after this court issued the New York State Rifle and Pistol association versus Bruin, which was in June of 2022, striking down New York’s discretionary firearms licensing regime. New York politicians decried that decision as reprehensible, vowing to resist the insanity of gun culture that possessed the Supreme Court rather than following this court’s decision, New York sought to nullify it through a concealed carry improvement act that makes it more difficult to exercise the right to bear arms in public than before Bruin was decided, relying almost entirely on a few outlier laws from the late 19th century rather than common practice.

At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the Second Circuit affirmed most of New York’s Bruin response bill, sanctioning the requirement that carry license applicants demonstrate their good moral character to licensing officials. Despite Bruin’s rejection of discretionary suitability determinations, the Second Circuit also endorsed New York’s firearm bans in all manner of nonsensitive public places, rendering carrying licenses almost no value. The questions presented are, one, whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning is 1791 rather than 1868 and two, whether the people must convince government officials of their good moral character before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms in public.

Obviously solid questions that we know the answer to. Now let’s look at the actual request they’re giving the court. The Second Amendment’s plain text presumptively guarantees a right to bear arms in public for self defense. That came from the Bruin decision. But just days after this statement was made, New York defiantly enacted its Bruin response bill, purporting to comport with this court’s decision but instead seeking to nullify it.

Intent on maintaining its de facto prohibition on public carry, New York decided that if it must issue licenses to ordinary citizens after Bruin, it first would do whatever it could to discourage applicants by imposing novel and onerous licensing requirements and then render any remaining licenses a practical nullity by prohibiting carry virtually everywhere in the state by declaring a multitude of brand new, sensitive locations. Although the district court issued a thorough that carefully applied the framework established in Bruin found petitioners likely to succeed on a number of their claims and enjoying large portions of the New York law.

The Second Circuit panel quickly stayed that order without providing any explanation for its ruling. The Second Circuit has now issued an opinion largely vacating the district court’s injunction, affirming only as to two of the least defensible provisions of the New York law to justify New York’s widespread carry ban across much of the state. The panel below concocted a historical tradition composed almost entirely and at times exclusively of mid to late 19th century statutes that revealed nothing about what the Second Amendment meant to those who ratified it and to justify New York’s requirement that a person prove so called good moral character to licensing officials before being entrusted to exercise an enumerated right.

The panel sanctioned the very sort of open ended discretion to determine suitability that Bruin explicitly prohibited. If New York’s challenged law was its Bruin response bill, then the panel’s decision represents the Second Circuit’s Bruin response opinion. Brazenly, the panel repeatedly justified wholesale rejection of Bruin’s methodology, claiming that Bruin was an exceptional case and that in less exceptional cases like this one, apparently courts are free to contrive their own approach.

Audaciously, the panel repeatedly chastised the district court for having hewed too closely to Bruin, and in one instance, the panel faulted the district court for having failed to properly appreciate a historical analog that appears never to have existed. The panel’s repudiation of Bruin was no accident. In support of its rejection of this court’s holdings, the panel referenced a law review article written as a playbook for lower courts to mitigate Bruin by engaging in the time honored practice of narrowing supreme Court precedent from below.

This court’s intervention is necessary for several reasons. First, to correct the panel’s flagrant methodological errors, which conflict with this court’s precedents second, to repudiate the panel’s unabashed refusal to abide by the Bruin framework and third, to provide lower courts that actually desire to follow this court’s directive with critical guidance on how to analyze Second Amendment cases. The lower courts need a definite pronouncement that the proper time period for ascertaining the scope of the Second Amendment is at the founding, not the last two decades of the 19th century, as the panel apparently believed.

And this case would allow this court the opportunity to clarify that government may not selectively disarm law abiding members of the public whenever licensing officials feel they are of poor character, potentially dangerous, or otherwise unworthy of enjoying the natural right to self defense with which they were endowed by their creator. These necessary course corrections not only would rectify the errors in the panel’s decision, but also would provide critical guidance to the lower courts, who are struggling with and split on the questions presented here.

So this would go a long way to just like jacking up those couple states that are refusing to follow the constitution, and we’re closer to 1776 than we’ve ever been since 1776. Solidarity, guys and gals. Look to your left, look to your right. Look to the folks behind you, in front of you. Those are the people who will stand the line with you. Those are the people who will keep you safe.

And those are the people who will keep this country safe when it comes down to it. So thank you all. If you want to stay in the know with the second amendment, then subscribe to the channel down below. Hit that button right down there. It’s free. Doesn’t cost you anything. Just tells YouTube that you stand by this channel and you support the second amendment. I appreciate. Y’all have a fantastic day.

Good job on Goa. Take care. .

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.