SCOTUS is going to shortly (hopefully before the end of June) rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and if it is positive for the 2nd Amendment like I think it will be it will rule that you cannot make someone demonstrate a "proper cause" to receive a permit to carry. As long as you are eligible for a permit meaning not a felon or prohibited, than you will receive a permit which should be all law-abiding citizens without a felony that precludes them from possessing a firearm.
So, if anyone who isn't prohibited from receiving a permit to carry that is basically Constitutional Carry.
Constitutional carry means that the state’s law does not prohibit citizens who can legally possess a firearm from carrying handguns, (openly and/or in a concealed manner) thus no state permit is required.
So, if SCOTUS rules positively in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and states that you cannot force someone to prove they have a "proper cause" to receive a permit to carry (thus meaning anyone who is eligible and applies for a permit to carry will automatically receive one) how far off are we from Constitutional Carry and not needing a permit to carry?
So, if anyone who isn't prohibited from receiving a permit to carry that is basically Constitutional Carry.
Constitutional carry means that the state’s law does not prohibit citizens who can legally possess a firearm from carrying handguns, (openly and/or in a concealed manner) thus no state permit is required.
So, if SCOTUS rules positively in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and states that you cannot force someone to prove they have a "proper cause" to receive a permit to carry (thus meaning anyone who is eligible and applies for a permit to carry will automatically receive one) how far off are we from Constitutional Carry and not needing a permit to carry?