WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a New York law that severely restricted the carrying of concealed firearms in public places for self-defense, finding that it required applicants seeking a concealed carry license to demonstrate a special need for self-defense. is unconstitutional.
By decision 6-3, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling upholding New York’s 108-year law restricting anyone from obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol in a public place. Proponents of the measure have warned that a Supreme Court ruling invalid could jeopardize gun restrictions in several states and lead to more firearms on city streets.
Judge Clarence Thomas voiced the majority’s opinion on the ideologically divided court, writing that New York’s “right cause requirement” did not allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to the Second Amendment, and the licensing regime was unconstitutional.
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a ‘second-class right subject to a completely different set of rules from Bill’s other rights guarantees,” Thomas wrote. “We do not know of any other constitutional right that a person can exercise only after demonstrating to civil servants a special need. This is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. This is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to the defendant’s right to stand up to witnesses against him. And that’s not the case when the Second Amendment works when it comes to wearing public self-defense. “
Writing disagreements about the court’s liberal wing, Judge Stephen Brier noted the rise in US gun violence and the proliferation of firearms, and warned that states working to pass tougher firearms laws would be “heavily” burdened. from the court decision.
“In my opinion, when the courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally correct, indeed often necessary, that they take into account the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that forces states to regulate firearms,” Breyer wrote. “The Second District did this and ruled that New York law did not violate the Second Amendment. I would confirm that opinion. “
The court’s ruling comes after a series of mass shootings from mid-May to early June that shook the nation and served as a catalyst for Congress to seek a consensus again on a legislative plan to curb gun violence. On May 14, a racist gunman opened fire on a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, killing 10 people. Ten days later, 19 children and two teachers were killed in a shooting at an elementary school in Uwalde, Texas. Then, on June 1, four people were fatally shot in a medical building in Tulsa, Okla.
The ruling marks the first extension of gun rights since 2008, when the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in a self-defense home. The court battle in New York was also the largest case for a Second Amendment in court since its 2008 ruling, and a 2010 ruling that the right to have a gun at home applies to the United States. Proponents of gun rights hoped the Conservative majority in the 6-3 Supreme Court would recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear firearms in public.
In a concerted opinion by Judge Brett Cavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Cavanaugh noted that the court ruling did not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements for carrying pistols and left existing regimes in 43 states untouched. Instead, it only affects stricter licensing rules in six states, including New York.
President Biden said in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed with the decision” and reiterated his call for states to amend their laws to curb gun violence.
“This decision contradicts both common sense and the Constitution and should worry us deeply,” he said.
New York’s law resolving the dispute dates back to 1913 and requires residents seeking a license to carry a weapon outside the home to demonstrate a “right cause” to obtain one that, according to state courts, is “a special need for self-defense. “
The two plaintiffs in the case, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, applied for carrying licenses, but licensing officials rejected their applications because they were unable to determine the correct reason for carrying pistols in public. The two received “limited” licenses to carry firearms for target shooting, hunting and outdoor activities.
Together with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Nash and Koch challenged the constitutionality of New York’s ban on carrying pistols in public and the requirement for a proper reason in 2018. Federal District Court dismissed their claim, and U.S. District Court 2nd Appeals confirmed the decision, leaving the licensing regime in force.
New York Governor Katie Hochul, a Democrat, criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying on Twitter that it was “outrageous that at a time of national reckoning with gun violence, the Supreme Court recklessly repealed a New York law that restricts those who they can carry hidden weapons. “
New York Governor Kathy Hochul responds to Supreme Court overturns gun law 00:59
New York Mayor Eric Adams said the court ruling “would expose New Yorkers to an additional risk of gun violence.” He promised to conduct a “comprehensive review” of the approach to identifying places where the carrying of firearms is prohibited, and to review the application process to ensure that only those who are qualified can obtain a license to carry.
“This decision may have opened an additional river that feeds the sea of violence, but we will do everything we can to block it,” he said.
Half of the states typically require a state permit to carry concealed firearms in a public place, and about six other states – California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island – allow a person to carry a firearm. in a public place only if they need it. In these half-dozen states, government officials have a discretion in refusing licenses, even if the applicant meets the legal criteria.
Officials in New York and the Biden administration, who called on the Supreme Court to uphold the law, warned judges during oral hearings in November that the repeal of the measure could have a domino effect, threatening not only U.S. restrictions but others that restrict the public. carry to places where people gather, such as airports, arenas, churches and schools.
Some of the judges seemed concerned about how a broad decision could affect the restrictions imposed on places where large numbers of people gather. Roberts, for example, asked if a state or city could ban firearms at football stadiums or places where alcohol was served, while Judge Amy Connie Barrett asked about banning guns in “sensitive places” such as Times Square on New Year’s Eve.
In the same opinion, Judge Samuel Alito criticized Breyer’s disagreement with the narration of recent mass shootings.
“Do dissidents think laws like New York prevent or deter such atrocities?” Will a person who seeks mass shooting be stopped if he knows it is illegal to carry a gun outside the home? And how does the disagreement explain the fact that one of the mass shootings at the top of the list took place in Buffalo? “He wrote.” The New York law under consideration in this case obviously did not stop this perpetrator.
Add Comment