Sorry readers, but wandering through the 80 plus friend of court briefs for NYRPA v Bruen is more than sobering. 

There are arguments, counterarguments, counting of English self-defense laws on a pin head, state legal officers and sheriffs pressing for more guns in society, too clever by far jurisprudence, social scientists lamenting the real and substantial cost of violence on U.S. society, and so on and so on.

In a word, it’s disconcerting.

It is disconcerting simply because whatever the court eventually decides on concealed carry in New York state won’t reduce the level of gun violence in the country; disconcerting because there is little recognition that the Second Amendment is inherently deeply flawed; simply asserting or implying that “it is what it is” doesn’t do the country any good.

Disconcerting because of the diametric opposition of points of view and the elusiveness of potential consensus on what is truly best for our country and society.

Disconcerting because of the broad acceptance on the part of so many brief writers that a level of gun violence far above that of similar industrialized countries is an acceptable part of the U.S. national experience and culture, and that it is basically the price of “liberty and freedom”, although one brief did argue in favor of the “right not to be shot”.

Disconcerting because of the fundamental disagreements on the facts and understandings of the founding era of U.S. history; disconcerting because of the failure of so many to recognize that today’s America bears little resemblance to that of 1791 Bill of Rights America and that the Second Amendment has long been overtaken by the country’s development and global events. 

Disconcerting to read in one brief about how “thin” (i.e. inherently violent and dangerous) U.S. “civilization” is and how that justifies the citizenry arming itself in self-defense from societal turmoil and threats.

Perhaps most disconcerting of all is the callousness of some law enforcement officials who write in support of arming the citizenry at a time when their own officers are under great and increasing risk.

With regard to this mountain of legal briefs, there is much to write about, to dissect and to highlight in the pursuit of true nonpartisan discussion of the 27 words of the Second Amendment, what they meant in 1791 and what they mean today, and how those meanings should guide SCOTUS as it rules in NYRPA v Bruen.

What a distance between today and the early years of the Industrial Revolution, the era of single shot pistols and muskets, and when the country was the throes of two centuries of incredibly dynamic social and technological change.  

Today, 231 years later, historic change has transformed the country and brought the world into a globalized post Industrial and now post Information Age, where, in the case of the U.S., incredible technological and social progress continues to be marred by daily headlines of senseless gun-related death and tragedy. 

I am drawn with particular incredulity to the strong and assertive push by the 23 state Attorneys General and 24 U.S. Republican Senators who are pressing the court to overturn the New York state law and practice regarding restrictions on concealed carry.  As noted earlier, in reading the AGs’ brief, one is struck by their implicit admission that public safety and security are sufficiently weak that citizens do, in fact, need to arm themselves to be able to walk their city streets in safety. What does that say about them, and about us as a country?

At the same time, those AGs and Senators who laud their own states’ willingness to forge their own Second Amendment paths to open carry argue to deny New York its path of reasoned choice, again by asserting the primacy of “shall not be infringed” as a national constitutional, not a state restricted, right.  Picking this issue for their narrow political concerns and benefit – not standing on constitutional principle -- is the only explanation. 

There is much to write about as the SCOTUS decision in NYRPA v Bruen nears.  I very much hope that others will launch their own journeys and explorations of the briefs and, in so doing, find a way to put the public spotlight and the pressure of majority public opinion openly on the justices and their deliberations. 

One final observation.

For some, including the authors of one brief supporting the NYRPA’s bid to relax or eliminate NY state concealed carry restrictions, there is the belief that slicing and dicing the statistical nuances of gun violence is a credible basis for SCOTUS rulings.  To this observer (IMHO), that seems to be a simple subterfuge to deflect attention from the incredible level of gun violence in the United States that is far, multiple times, higher compared to that existing elsewhere in the industrialized world.  What relevance are a few percentage points when more than 30,000 people die and many thousands are maimed and wounded each year?  Pretty callous subterfuge indeed.

America needs an open debate and discussion on this issue more than ever and time is pressing.  Please contribute and do your part to encourage sound law and sound regulation and make sure that the justices, as they debate in their black box or vacuum of exalted jurisprudence, somehow hear your voice and reason.