Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the New York law “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
Here’s what could happen next if Roe v. Wade is overturned by SCOTUS
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, established rights like gay marriage and contraception could be at stake.
Megan Smith, USA TODAY
- The 6-3 decision split the court along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority.
- The court said the law unconstitutionally barred people from exercising Second Amendment rights.
- In dissent, Justice Breyer said the ruling “severely burdens states’ efforts” to stop gun violence.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York law that required state residents to have “proper cause” to carry a handgun in a decision that could make it far easier for millions of Americans to arm themselves in public as the nation is still reeling from a string of mass shootings.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority, holding that the New York law violated the Constitution and signaling other gun regulations disconnected from “historical tradition” would face similar scrutiny in court.
Thomas’ opinion had the potential to upend the legal landscape around Second Amendment rights at a time when Americans remain divided over access to guns. Congress, meanwhile, is racing to pass a sweeping package of restrictions in response to recent mass shootings, including one at a Texas elementary school last month.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote of the New York law. “It is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The case was among the most closely watched this term on a docket full of culture war issues such as abortion, religious freedom and climate change. The decision drew a fiery response from Democrats, including President Joe Biden, and gun control groups who asserted that increasing access to guns would drive additional violence. .
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” Biden said in a statement.
The decision landed weeks after an 18-year-old gunman, armed with an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, fatally shot 19 children and two teachers at a school in Texas. Another 18-year-old has been charged in the May 14 killing of 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Four others were killed June 1 in a shooting at an Oklahoma medical facility.
But gun rights groups and several of the court’s conservative justices countered that the New York law did nothing to stop the Buffalo shooting and asserted that it also wouldn’t have stopped other high-profile killings. In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Samuel Alito criticized his liberal colleagues for mentioning the mass shootings.
“Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?,” Alito wrote. “Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?”
The court issued the decision as a bipartisan group of senators this week revealed the text of a sweeping gun reform package that, if passed, could end decades of partisan gridlock and inaction on the issue. That bill includes an “enhanced review process” for young gun buyers and would provide money to states that adopt “red flag” laws. Those laws would allow courts to remove firearms from people deemed a threat to themselves or others.
In a dissent joined by the court’s liberal justices, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer started his opinion by writing that 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms in 2020 and that gun violence has surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.
“Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds,” Breyer wrote. “The court today severely burdens states’ efforts to do so.”
More than a decade ago, the high court ruled that Americans have an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess guns in their homes settling a debate over whether the Constitution guaranteed that right only for individuals or militias. But the court left unanswered whether the same right exists beyond a home’s front door.
At issue is a New York law that requires residents to have “proper cause” to carry a handgun – in other words, a need for a permit greater than the general public. Two upstate New York residents, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, sued when a county licensing official denied them the carry privileges they sought.
The court’s decision was celebrated by gun rights groups.
“Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home.”
Gun control groups, on the other hand, asserted it would increase violence.
“Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country.”
During the course of a two-hour oral argument in November, it seemed clear a majority favored striking down New York’s law. The real question in the case is the scope of the court’s ruling and how many similar gun regulations it will affect across the nation.
At least six other Democratic-led states – including California, Maryland and New Jersey – have licensing regimes similar to New York’s. Together, those states represent about a quarter of the nation’s population.
The justices wrestled with the limits on the right to carry a gun in public, and whether those limits should be more pronounced in densely populated places, such as New York City. They peppered the plaintiffs with hypotheticals about whether New York could ban handguns on the New York City subway or in Yankee Stadium. What about on college campuses or at bars?
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that other states, including those with large cities, have more permissive gun regulations without major consequences. But the court’s liberal justices pushed back on that assertion, arguing that the city of Chicago is case in point for how more guns can lead to spiraling crime rates.
“I mean, most people think that Chicago is, like, the world’s worst city with respect to gun violence,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan said at the time. “Chicago doesn’t think that, but everybody else thinks it about Chicago.”
Much was made of the court’s decision last year to hear the case, in part because the justices had turned away other Second Amendment appeals for years and also because they seemed to pump the brakes on culture war issues more generally. Since then, the 6-3 conservative court has agreed to revisit abortion, affirmative action policies in college admissions and the extent to which states may consider race when they draw political boundaries, such as congressional districts.
Argument: Supreme Court skeptical of law that limits carrying handguns in public
History: A 700-year-old law may inform Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
Biden’s administration, which supported New York in the suit, said at least six other states have similar laws. A federal district court in New York dismissed the challenge to the New York permitting scheme in 2018, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision.
Contributing: David Jackson, Candy Woodall
from USA News – usanewsplug https://ift.tt/x84VDTy
via IFTTT