Washington – The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a New York law that imposed strict restrictions on carrying covert firearms in public for self-defense, and found that the requirement that applicants applying for a concealed transportation license demonstrate a special need for self-defense is unconstitutional.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision upholding the 108-year-old New York law that limited who can get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Proponents of the measure warned that a high court ruling invalidating it could threaten gun restrictions in several states and cause more firearms on city streets.
Judge Clarence Thomas issued the majority opinion for the ideologically divided court, and wrote that New York’s “requirement of proper cause” prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to the Second Amendment, and its licensing regime is 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 the other guarantees of the Charter of Rights,'” Thomas wrote. another constitutional right that an individual can exercise only after demonstrating to government officials some special need. This is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular discourse or the free exercise of religion. It’s not like the Sixth. The amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. And that’s not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public transportation for self-defense. “
Writing in dissent by the liberal wing of the court, Judge Stephen Breyer noted the rise in armed violence in the U.S. and the ubiquity of firearms, and warned that states working to pass stricter gun laws of fire will be “severely” charged by the court’s decision.
“In my view, when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally appropriate, in fact often necessary, to take into account the grave dangers and consequences of armed violence that lead states to regulate firearms.” , wrote Breyer. “The Second Circuit has done so and has held that New York law does not violate the Second Amendment. I would affirm that consideration.”
The court’s decision comes after a series of mass shootings from mid-May to early June that shook the nation and acted as a catalyst for Congress to seek consensus again on a legislative plan to curb armed violence. . On May 14, a racist gunman shot at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, killing 10 people. Ten days later, 19 children and two teachers were massacred in a shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Then, on June 1, four people were shot dead 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 at home for self-defense. The New York judicial battle was also the most important Second Amendment case in court since its 2008 decision, and a 2010 ruling that said the right to have a gun at home applies to states. Proponents of gun rights hoped the Conservative 6-3 Supreme Court majority would recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm in public.
In a concurring opinion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and joined by court president John Roberts, Kavanuagh noted that the court’s decision does not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements to carry handguns and leaves untouched existing regimes in 43 states. In contrast, it only affects the strictest licensing rules in six states, including New York.
President Biden said in a statement that he is “deeply disappointed by the decision” and again urged states to enact changes to their laws to curb armed violence.
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should concern us all deeply,” he said.
New York’s permit law at the core of the dispute dates back to 1913 and requires residents seeking a license to carry a gun away from home to prove an “appropriate cause” to obtain one, which state courts they have said it is a “special need for self-protection.”
The two plaintiffs in the case, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, each applied for a transportation license, but licensing officers denied their applications because they did not establish the proper cause for carrying guns in public. Both were granted “restricted” licenses to carry firearms for target shooting, hunting and outdoor activities.
Together with the New York State Pistols and Rifles Association, Nash and Koch challenged the constitutionality of the New York ban on carrying handguns in public and the requirement of proper cause in 2018. federal district dismissed his claim and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court. Appeals upheld the decision, leaving the licensing regime in place.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, saying on Twitter that “it was outrageous that at a time of national accounts of armed violence, the Supreme Court had recklessly overturned a New York law. York limiting those who can carry concealed weapons. “
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Supreme Court ruling on gun law 06:03
New York City Mayor Eric Adams said the court’s decision “will put New Yorkers at greater risk of armed violence.” He undertook to conduct a “comprehensive review” of the approach to define places where firearms are prohibited and to review the application process to ensure that only those who are qualified can obtain a gun license. .
“This decision may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of armed violence, but we will do our best to dam it,” he said.
Former President Trump was recognized by the court’s decision, telling his Social Truth platform: “Elections have consequences. I promised to appoint judges who would defend the Constitution. Today, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the second amendment of all Americans. “
Half of the states generally require a state-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, and of these, about six more states (California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) allow a person bring a person. a firearm in public only if they need it. In these half-dozen states, government officials have the discretion to deny licenses, even if the applicant meets the statutory criteria.
New York officials and the Biden administration, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law, warned judges during the November oral arguments that invalidating the measure could have a domino effect, endangering not only the state restrictions, but also others that limit the public. lead to places where people congregate, such as airports, arenas, churches and schools.
Some of the judges seemed concerned about how a broad decision might affect the restrictions imposed on places where large numbers of people gather. Roberts, for example, questioned whether a state or city could ban firearms in football stadiums or places where alcohol is served, while Judge Amy Coney Barrett asked about banning guns in “sensitive places.” such as Times Square on New Year’s Eve.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Samuel Alito criticized Breyer’s dissent to explain the recent mass shootings.
“Does dissent believe that laws like the one in New York prevent or deter these atrocities? Will a person determined to carry out a mass shooting stop if he knows it is illegal to carry a gun away from home? And how do you explain dissent? the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of your list took place in Buffalo? ” He wrote. “The New York law in question in this case obviously did not stop this perpetrator.”