Two of the nation’s top gun-rights organizations filed amicus briefs this week with the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The briefs are in reference to a case known as NYSRPA v Bruen<\/a><\/em>, which is a challenge to New York’s controversial “may-issue” permitting system brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and backed by the National Rifle Association. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis case has been a long time coming and it would not be an overstatement that SAF has an intense interest because of our many members in New York and elsewhere that so-called \u2018proper cause\u2019 requirements are routinely used to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carrying firearms for personal protection outside their homes,\u201d said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSuch laws are arbitrary in nature and they place an absurd level of authority in the hands of local officials and their subordinates to deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms,” he continued. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President for GOA and GOF agreed with Mr. Gottlieb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cGOA and GOF are proud to ensure a \u2018no compromise\u2019 message is presented before the Supreme Court, as this brief strikes at the core of the most egregious gun control in the entire country,” stated Pratt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Gun owners nationwide look forward to the Court ruling with the \u2018text, history and tradition\u2019 of the Second Amendment and striking down New York\u2019s infringing \u2018may-issue\u2019 permit system,” he added. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The notion that a law-abiding citizen needs explicit permission from the government before he or she is allowed to exercise a fundamental right is antithetical to the Constitution. Which raises the question of how did we even get to this point? Why is this even up for debate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer to that question can be found on social media. What one quickly realizes is that many on the Left have deluded themselves over the years into believing that the right to keep<\/em><\/strong> and bear arms doesn’t mean what it plainly states. Case in point:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2nd Amendment is about State Militias, not personal ownership of guns. The word \u201cown\u201d does not appear in it, nor does any synonym for \u201cown.\u201d https:\/\/t.co\/nY7hgfptP4<\/a><\/p>\u2014 Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) April 29, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote> \n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court will likely hear this case in the Fall and issue a decision next Spring. If you have time, you can read the two briefs below: <\/p>\n\n\n\nBREAKING: Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n