SCOTUS's Latest 2A Case Isn't
about Race, It's about Rights
Does a person need to be assaulted, shot, or wounded
in order to carry a firearm for self-defense?

The U.S. Supreme Court on November 3 will hear oral arguments in one of the most consequential Second Amendment cases since the Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which reaffirmed the individual right to possess and use firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within one's home. The new case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, will determine whether that same right extends beyond an individual's residence.

In the first round of arguments on this case, New York state Attorney General Leticia James went totally off the rails, sidestepping the constitutional issues and focusing instead on race. In arguing against the High Court reviewing the case, Ms. James submitted a brief riddled with false narratives presented as facts. As a historian whose research has been cited by the Court in previous Second Amendment decisions, I can assure the attorney general's team that if they persist in their racial narrative history and the Constitution will argue against them.

By way of background, a number of states require licenses to carry firearms outside the home, but licenses generally are available to all law-abiding citizens. New York, by contrast, is one of six states that not only requires citizens to obtain such licenses but also makes most citizens ineligible to get them.

Like many other New Yorkers, Robert Nash had passed required background checks and possessed a "restricted" license to carry a firearm: but only for hunting and target shooting, not self-defense. .....