Quote of the day—Independent Firearms Owners Association

The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the case NYS Rifle and Pistol Association V. Superintendent of NYS Police (No. 20-843)

The case will be heard in the fall term of the court later this year with a ruling expected in the spring of 2022. The Independent Firearm Owners Association will file an Amicus brief in the proceedings.

The issues raised are straightforward. Does an individual right of self protection with a handgun extend beyond the property of the owner? “Can a government which cannot protect its citizens deny them the means to protect themselves?” asked Peter Sullivan, former NYS Assemblyman from Westchester, NY and Board Member of the IFOA.

Firearm owners have been asking this question for a generation in NYS ever since the police have denied carry licenses to ordinary law abiding citizens for no reason, while granting them to wealthy, powerful, and politically connected “big shots”. (Mayor Lindsay, Donald Trump, Eleanor Roosevelt, & Howard Stern)

The issue raised in this case is not about training or other restrictions before issuing licenses, but of fairness and equal rights. “Either the government trusts its citizens or it does not, they can’t have it both ways”, concluded Richard Feldman, President of the IFOA.

Independent Firearms Owners Association
April 26, 2021
Media release via email.
[See also:

This is a really big deal in more than one way.

The first is that there is a good chance this will overturn all the “may issue” concealed carry laws. It even has the potential (a big stretch with the SCOTUS rewording of the question being asked) of overturn all licensing requirement for carrying a firearm.

The second important point I want to make is that court review of concealed carry licensing should have taken place and been settled law shortly after the Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. That it is happening 110 years later tell us something is very broken with our legal system.—Joe]


15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Independent Firearms Owners Association

  1. I’m sure Biden and his cronies will be working overtime to pack the Supreme Court before that case is heard.

  2. Once again we see the court only looking at the bureaucratic end. And not the principle.
    Why is the court being asked a question of why New York will, or won’t issue a permit? When the court should have told them they had no power to force someone to ask them for a permit in the first place. “Shall not be infringed”, anyone? What, No one understands the word, “bear”. As in bearing arms?
    Smells like clownworld to me.
    And after the court chicken-shitting on voter fraud cases between states.. The court has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their just another body of politics. Not of law. Their decisions no longer have standing under the constitution. Any more than Joe Biden’s do after a stolen election.
    110 years late indeed!

    • Certainly they teleported the phrase “Not be infringed” to the First Amendment as it applies to Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Freedom of Religion and Freedom to Peaceably Assemble, not so much. I can’t say how it will fare with the Right to Petition one’s government now that the specter of Hate Speech is on the horizon with so many people seeing it as a savior for polite dissent and no one recognizing it as the threat of the exception that will swallow the rule.

  3. There is only one outcome: The Supreme Court affirming that there is no right to carry a firearm outside of your home this meaning that there is no right to self-defense outside your home.

    In the one in a trillion chance they rule for us the scope will be so narrow it will be rendered worthless and meaningless.

    • Assuming the Democrats are unsuccessful in packing the court the odds are much better than that of for a favorable outcome from the court. I do expect the politicians in the affected jurisdictions will do their best to ignore the ruling so the effect of a favorable ruling will be minimized.

      If you wish to stand by the odds given I would like to make a small bet with you.

      • I’d take a wager, Joe. I agree with Shawn. I think we’ve crossed a Rubicon of sorts since last November. If this had happened last year, I would be more optimistic. I think they will twist themselves into such odd knots of mumble-jumble judicial double speak that it will somehow confine a ruling to certain citizens of New York State only. Let me know what kind of stakes you’re thinking of. New tee shirts or other swag or whatever you think.

          • I guess you weren’t serious about a friendly bet over the outcome of this matter.

    • They’ve got a stare decisis problem on trying to get there, because there are previous SCOTUS rulings specifically on the need for self-defense outside the home.

      That’s assuming that stare decisis means anything any more, just as it assumes that any law is actually in effect, other than as a “I’ve decided to destroy you; my fig-leaf excuse to do so is… *spin wheel of legalese*” justification.

      • If they could overturn Heller and McDonald they would.

        If the courts actually gave a shit all those state level gun bans would no longer exist.

        I have absolutely no faith in the courts. The courts are not our friends. They hate us and want us dead just as much as the Democrats do.

    • I stated elsewhere the Court doesn’t grant cert on issues that it tends to agree with current outcomes on. So I don’t think this bodes well for NY State. I think the Court is ready to rule on a (managed) right to carry outside the home given almost half the country is Constitutional Carry and most is “Shall Issue”. The holdout states of “May Issue”, in practice “No Issue” for reasons of “public safety” are the anomalies.

      I think the Court is ready to hold these holdouts accountable when the rest of the country deems it to be a right.

      • I’m in Delaware, and we’re this weird state in that we are “May Issue” but very, very few who apply for a CCDW are denied permits.

        Now the legislature has gone full on crazy, NJ style and is poised to ram a mag possession ban and purchase permit law down our throats.

        In Senate debate on these bills the lawyer who has routinely sued the State on gun cases and won was on Zoom and all but told the Dems the permit to purchase and mag bans were unconstitutional, would be challenged and the state would lose.

        The Democrats did not care. They are being told flat out they will be held accountable and their response is “fuck you, obey peasant. you have no rights.”

        My biggest concern is that the Democrats have learned that they can basically ignore Court descisions ruling their laws unconstitutional without any real repurcussions.

    • I am somewhat albeit pragmatically more optimistic than that. Do you honestly believe they took the case only to say “‘and bear’ is another way of saying ‘keep’ and you have no right to carry a gun outside the home absent State permission” and uphold the NY state of affairs?!?
      I don’t. I think they took it to rule the right does exist outside the home subject to intermediate scrutiny (permits ok, training ok, non-discretionary issue required) and will strike down “May Issue” behavior as a poll tax or outright denial of a right and not honoring Equal Protection.

      States have to allow you the right to carry outside the home. They can choose the means and manner but cannot discriminate on any other basis other than being a prohibited person. Understand that 80%+ of the country allows shall issue carry and the holdouts are the anomalies. I think they intend to strike a balance to allow some of form of carry rights to the entire citizenry rather than allow it to be continually limited at a State level.

      The one-in-a-trillion odds I’d take is the strike down the NY carry restrictions under strict scrutiny, hold that the right to bear outside the home is fundamental and rule that all permits apply under the Full Faith and Credit clause regardless of where they are issued and are to be honored in all states. Effectively allowing residents of May Issue states to carry there under any non-resident permit they obtain. States can keep May Issue but it is rendered functionally meaningless because any permit shall be treated the same as a driver’s license or marriage certificate.

      That is my fantasy come true. I’ll settle for killing May Issue in the holdouts and see them forced through future lawsuits or simple fatigue to let go of their May Issue/No Issue regimes over the next several years.

      But I don’t think they took the case to ultimately render the 2nd a permanent 2nd class right that has no meaning any longer or to overturn Heller/McDonald.

  4. “Can a government which cannot protect its citizens deny them the means to protect themselves?”

    I will make a slight alteration to this:
    “Can a government which WILL not…..”

    The two Supreme case which come to mind (‘DC Vs Warren’ and ‘Castle Rock Vs Gonzales’) were brought about specifically because police deliberately failed to discharge their duties.

    I’m a cynic. Our system of law is meaningless and recent events bear that out.

    I have little faith that this will give us what we wish it to.

  5. The mental and moral gymnastics these corrupt judges are capable of in the quest
    to satisfy the commies holding their puppet strings are almost indescribable to the average person. There is NO WAY that this court is going to rule in ANY way that could expand our rights under the Second Amendment. The right of a citizen to own AND POSSESS the means of self defense makes it exceedingly difficult and often dangerous for those in power to wield power. Disarming us so they can rule with impunity is their NUMBER ONE AGENDA. And there is quite literally nothing the commies in power won’t do to achieve that goal….including murdering a SCOTUS justice if required. And compared to killing a judge packing a few more quisling puppets onto the bench is small potatoes.

Comments are closed.