United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Supreme Court decisions can have some big effects people might not realize when a case is argued. In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a dream of Sarah Brady’s could be wiped out.
NYSRPA v. Bruen centers around the “discretionary issue” concealed-carry permit systems, which most notably exist in New York (California and New Jersey are also notorious in that regard). Second Amendment supporters rightly disdain them, given the often arbitrary denials that come from issuing authorities. Besides, why should you have to demonstrate a need to exercise your Second Amendment rights?
Now, though, it’s time for history. Just under three decades ago, when the Brady Act was passed, anti-Second Amendment extremists unveiled the next part of their plan, what Charles Schumer called “the rest of the camel.” It was called Brady II.
Its provisions included a ban on magazines holding more than six rounds (owners of pre-ban magazines would have been placed under the provisions of the National Firearms Act), a separate “arsenal license” (in essence, treating gun collectors like criminals), and a host of other onerous provisions, including a permanent waiting period and a licensing and registration scheme for handguns.
The ultimate goal, as Sarah Brady put it in that August 15, 1993 article, was to impose “needs-based licensing” on gun owners. Just as New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and the other holdouts from the consensus between reasonably fair “shall issue” concealed carry states (like Virginia and Florida) or those that have taken to “constitutional carry” (like Texas and West Virginia) demand one justify a reason to have a carry permit, Sarah Brady wanted you to have to justify the purchase of a given firearm.
In essence, if you wanted a new rifle, you’d need to explain why, and some bureaucrat (or some panel) could keep you from buying that rifle if you already had some. And forget about being able to buy any sort of firearm for personal protection – as we have seen from “may issue” states, such a purchase would only be for those politically well-connected.
Well, here’s where NYSRPA v. Bruen ends that threat for the foreseeable future: If SCOTUS strikes down the requirement to justify a reason for a concealed carry permit, could any requirement that one justify the need for a specific firearm be upheld? While we’d never want to have an actual case in point, the answer is, “Probably not.”
However, Second Amendment supporters will need to avoid complacency. The best defense against seeing this policy objective of Sarah Brady’s becoming law is for Second Amendment supporters to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremist via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.