The rights in the Constitution must be available to all citizens

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: August 11, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------


** Can the Government Require That Citizens Prove the Need for Self-Protection in Order To Carry a Gun Outside the Home?
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Can the government require that citizens prove they need self-protection in order to carry a gun outside the home?

That is the question before the U.S. Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, which has been asked to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home for protection ([link removed]) and whether government officials should be able to pick and choose which class of citizens are deemed worthy of self-protection. In filing an amicus brief ([link removed]) in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution must be available to all citizens and not parceled out at the whim of government bureaucrats.

“When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership. As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a xxxxxx against a police state.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

In response to the influx of European immigrants into the Northeast, and New York City in particular, New York State enacted the Sullivan Law in 1911, which made it unlawful to possess any firearm anywhere without a license and gave government officials broad discretion to decide who could obtain one. The law, which was used to deny immigrants in the early 20^th century the ability to possess firearms, has remained on the books. New York State residents are required to have a license to possess a firearm and are entitled to a license unless good cause is shown. However, even persons with a license may not carry a firearm outside their home unless they obtain another license to do so, and then only if they can show “proper cause” for carrying a gun outside the home. As with the Sullivan Law, licensing officials are given broad discretion to determine who has “proper cause” for a license to carry outside the home, requiring an applicant to show they have a “special need” for self-protection.
Two state residents applied for a license to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, citing a string of robberies and crimes where they lived. However, they were denied a carry license because they did not show a “special need” for self-protection that was different from other members of the general public.

These residents and a state association representing firearms owners challenged the law, asserting that it violates the Second Amendment by requiring that persons show “proper cause” for carrying a firearm outside the home. However, the lower federal courts dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess a firearm outside of the home. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In their amicus brief ([link removed]) , attorneys for The Rutherford Institute argue that state licensing officials should not be allowed to determine that only a “special class” of citizens is allowed to exercise the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, which is a fundamental right belonging to all citizens.

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen is available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) . Affiliate attorneys Michael J. Lockerby, Eli Evans, W. Bradley Russell, A.J. Salomone, and John Sepehri of Foley & Lardner LLP assisted in advancing the arguments in N.Y. State Rifle.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fcan-the-government-require-that-citizens-prove-the-need-for-self-protection-in-order-to-carry-a-gun-outside-the-home Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fcan-the-government-require-that-citizens-prove-the-need-for-self-protection-in-order-to-carry-a-gun-outside-the-home)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2021 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])