WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court has issued its largest ruling on gun rights in more than a decade. Here are some questions and answers about what Thursday’s decision does and doesn’t do:
WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SUPREME WEAPONS COURT DECIDE?
The Supreme Court said Americans have the right to carry firearms in public places for self-defense. This is important because about half a dozen states have required a person to demonstrate a license to carry a weapon in public from a person who demonstrates a real need – sometimes called a “good cause” or “right reason” – to carry a weapon. This limits who can carry weapons in these states.
The Supreme Court overturned New York’s demand for a “right cause” in its ruling, but the laws of other states are expected to face swift challenges. About a quarter of the US population lives in states that are expected to be affected by the decision.
The last time the court issued major weapons decisions was in 2008 and 2010. In these decisions, judges established a nationwide right to keep weapons for self-defense in a person’s home. The question to the court this time was only about carrying a gun outside the home.
Judge Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s opinion that the law extended beyond the home: “Nothing in the text of the Second Amendment makes a distinction between home / public and the right to keep and bear arms.”
HOW DID THE RIGHTEOUS GOVERN?
The gun decision divided the court 6-3, with conservative judges in the majority and its liberals disagreeing. In addition to Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Judges Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett joined the majority. The three dissenting court liberals are Judges Stephen Brier, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
IS NEW YORK ALREADY FREE TO CARRY A PISTOL TO SOCIETY?
Not exactly. The judges did not touch on other parts of the New York City Weapons Act, so other licensing requirements remain. The court has made it clear that the state can continue to force people to apply for a gun license and may impose restrictions on who qualifies for a permit and where a weapon can be carried. In the future, however, New Yorkers will no longer be required to state a specific reason why they want to be able to carry a weapon in a public place.
The decision also does not take effect immediately, and state lawmakers said Thursday they plan to review licensing rules this summer. They have not yet detailed their plans. Some options discussed include a firearms training requirement and a clean criminal record. The state may also ban the carrying of pistols in certain places, such as near schools or on public transport.
Furthermore, the decision does not apply to a law that was recently passed in New York in response to the Buffalo grocery store massacre, which also banned anyone under the age of 21 from buying or owning a semi-automatic rifle.
WHICH OTHER COUNTRIES MAY BE AFFECTED?
Several states have laws similar to those in New York. The Biden administration sees California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island as all with laws similar to those in New York. Connecticut and Delaware are also sometimes referred to as states with similar laws.
WHAT CAN COUNTRIES DO TO REGULATE WEAPONS AFTER THE DECISION?
Judge Brett Cavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to obtain a gun license, Cavanaugh wrote, and require a license to “take fingerprints, verify the past, check mental health and firearms training, and under laws on the use of firearms.” force, among other possible requirements. ” Arms control groups have said states can review and possibly increase these requirements. States can also say that those who have a license to carry a weapon should not do so openly, but should hide their weapons.
Judge Samuel Alito noted that the decision did not say “anything about who can legally own a firearm or the requirements that must be met in order to purchase a weapon.” States have long banned criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons, for example. The decision also says nothing “about the types of weapons that people can own,” Alito said, so states may also try to limit the availability of specific weapons.
Judges also suggest that states may completely ban the carrying of weapons in certain “sensitive areas.” A previous Supreme Court ruling cited schools and government buildings as places where guns could be banned. Thomas said historical records show that legislatures, polling stations and courtrooms can also be sensitive places. Thomas said the courts could “use analogies with these historic provisions for ‘sensitive areas’ to determine that modern provisions prohibiting the carrying of firearms in new and similar sensitive areas are constitutionally permissible.”
HOW DO COURTS EVALUATE WEAPON RESTRICTIONS?
The court has found it more difficult to justify arms restrictions, although it is difficult to know what the new test that the court has announced for each specific regulation will mean.
Thomas wrote that national courts of appeal apply an incorrect standard to assess whether such laws are inadmissible. The courts have usually used a two-step approach, first examining the constitutional text and history to see if a regulation falls under the second amendment, and then, if so, examining the government’s justification for the restriction.
“Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it’s one step too much,” Thomas wrote.
From now on, Thomas writes, the courts can only comply with the regulations if the government can prove that they fall within the traditionally accepted limits.
State and local restrictions already being challenged in federal court include bans on the sale of certain semi-automatic weapons, called assault rifles by opponents, and high-capacity ammunition stores, as well as minimum age requirements for the purchase of semi-automatic firearms.
WHAT OTHER BIG SOLUTIONS ARE THERE IN THE WORK?
The Supreme Court heard the arguments in the arms case back in November and a decision was expected before the court began its summer vacation. The court has nine more opinions to issue before going on holiday and plans to release more on Friday. Still waiting is an important solution for abortion.
___
Associated Press editor David Caruso contributed to the report from New York.
Add Comment