Commentator argues crossing a state line should not cancel your Second Amendment rights

1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.

Read the story at Instapundit →

What we know

A commentator argues that crossing a state line should not cancel an individual's Second Amendment rights. The commentary suggests that constitutional gun rights should remain intact regardless of state boundaries.

Patriot Watch first flagged this story 3 hr ago, when Instapundit reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Instapundit. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.

⚖ The Constitutional Angle

McDonald held the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, so the right applies in every state. Bruen held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. Together they mean a law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms does not vanish at a state border.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Alito

The Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. A four-Justice plurality incorporated the right via the Due Process Clause as fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in its history and tradition; Justice Thomas supplied the fifth vote via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Seventh Circuit's judgment upholding Chicago's and Oak Park's handgun bans was reversed and remanded.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)

Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas

New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.

Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited