The US Supreme Court granted cert in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION , INC., ROBERT N ASH, BRANDON KOCH v. KEITH M. CORLETT. Some see this as a good thing; SCOTUS finally taking a 2A case. I’m not so optimistic.

Petitioners objected to New York State’s requirement that would-be concealed carry applicants, in addition to training and passing background checks, prove they have a good enough reason to carry a firearm. Mere self-defense for the unwashed masses is not sufficient. It’s called “may issue licensing,” as opposed to “shall issue.”

Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed an excellent amicus brief, showing any number of important questions that closely relate to the whole issue. Finally addressing them would, in theory, sort out a lot of inconsistencies between Circuits. Sadly, SCOTUS is refusing to answer them yet again.

Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

That’s nice, but that isn’t the question that petitioners asked:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

By changing it from a question about law-abiding citizens carrying in public, to denial of licenses Period — no mention of “law-abiding” people carrying — the InJustices can now say, Gee, states have to be able to deny some licenses, otherwise prohibited persons could apply and get licenses. No one wants that to happen.

They’ve dodged the entire issue of denial of rights based on an arbitrary you didn’t show good enough need to carry a gun. The point of contention was shall versus may issue, and if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Now it’s is licensing constitutional?

Prediction: 5/4 denial of licenses does not not violate the Second Amendment; Roberts with the majority. “May issue” remains because the Court refused to look at that.

Although it could go 6/3. Gorsuch is such an insufferable hair-splitter that he may go along with the majority, too. On the other hand, he might object to the reframed question itself. Hard to say.

Either way, this looks like yet another SCOTUS cop-out, and another 2A loss.

Added:

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow

(Hat tp to David Codrea)