Brady Applauds Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Serve on the Supreme Court

Washington, D.C., February 25, 2022 - Today, Brady applauds the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Brady President Kris Brown shared:

“President Biden has chosen wisely; Judge Brown Jackson is an experienced and thoughtful jurist. Her qualifications are beyond question. There is no doubt as to her judicial temperament. She will make an esteemed and valuable addition to the Supreme Court.

The next Justice will be critically important for the gun violence prevention movement, in particular adopting a correct and historic interpretation of the Second Amendment and upholding popularly enacted and constitutional public safety laws. The court will issue a ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen this term, a case with the stakes to upend centuries of precedent that protects states’ ability to enact common-sense gun violence prevention laws to protect public safety. We need a justice on the court who understands that there is no daylight between the right to bear arms and laws that protect Americans from the threat of gun violence and a justice who understands that the effects of our laws fall on Americans differently. While we look forward to hearing from her and those who know her in the confirmation hearings, it appears that Judge Brown Jackson is such a jurist. We trust that she will continue to defend common-sense gun violence prevention laws and adjudicate questions before the court with an eye towards precedent and equity.”

About NYSRPA v. Bruen:

The Petitioners in this case: two individuals and the New York affiliate of the NRA — the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA), are mounting another challenge to New York’s law requiring individuals to show “proper cause” to define the scope of a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public spaces. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this law following an identical challenge in 2012 and the majority of other federal Courts of Appeals found similar “good cause” restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Although the Petitioners in this case mischaracterize the law as a complete ban on ordinary citizens carrying handguns for self-defense, the Petitioners were granted licenses to carry handguns for hunting, target shooting, and in unpopulated areas for self-defense. One of the Petitioner’s licenses also allowed him to carry a handgun for self-defense while commuting to and from work. The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the denial of Petitioners' request for wholly unrestricted concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated their Second Amendment rights.

Petitioners in this case are seeking a right not just to carry guns in public, but a right to carry guns for use in armed confrontation where any individual, trained or untrained in the lawful use of deadly force, becomes an arbiter of deadly violence alongside state authorities.