NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Thursday's Supreme Court made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a hidden pistol New York's regulations are unconstitutionally restricted and it is easier to obtain such a license He ruled 6-3 that it should be.
Under existing standards, applicants must provide a "reasonable reason" to seek a license, andNew York officialsprovide sufficient reasons for a person to need one. I was able to exercise my discretion in deciding whether to show. To carry firearms. It wasn't enough to just say that you wanted to protect yourself and your property.
"In this case, the petitioner and the respondent agree that citizens who comply with ordinary law have the same right to publicly carry a pistol for self-defense. He also agreed and is now in line with Heller and McDonald's. The second and 14th amendments allow for the protection of individuals' right to carry pistols outside their homes for self-defense. " "The state of New York concludes that the state's license system is unconstitutional because it only issues public licenses if the applicant indicates a special need for self-defense."
Thomas states that state law does not define what "appropriate causes" mean, and courts have ruled that those who have shown "special needs for self-defense" meet the criteria. rice field.
Supreme Court signals may break or limit restrictive NY gun permit laws
File-May 22, 2021, during a gun repurchase event in Brooklyn, NY , Pistols from a collection of illegal guns have been reviewed.(AP Photo / Bebeto Matthews, FIle)
"The criteria for this" special needs "are strict," Thomas writes. "For example, living or working in an area" famous for criminal activity "is not enough.
In the other 43 states, authorities need to issue licenses to applicants who meet certain requirements, and authorities say no because they believe it is an inadequate need. I don't have the right. The
case, New York Rifle&The Pistol Association v Brune was the first major gun rights casebefore the Supreme Courtfor more than a decade. Thomas referred to McDonald's vs. Chicago City and D.C. vs. Heller in the 2010s as reasons for Thursday's ruling.
Vulnerable Democrat Horseford, Gottmier vote against bipartisan Supreme Court security bill
"Heller said As repeated at McDonald's,'personal self-defense is "a central element of the rights of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment," the judge said. He also argued how Heller revealed that restrictions on the carrying of guns in "sensitive areas" were acceptable, and that New York argued that the law was merely doing that. Mentioned the wrong method.
"Respondents think there is a mistake in trying to characterize New York's legitimate reasoning requirements as a" delicate place "law," Thomas wrote. New York explained that he sees "delicate places" everywhere. "It's a place where people usually get together and probably available to law enforcement and other public security professionals."
According to Thomas, this definition is too broad.
"Simply put, the historical basis for New York to effectively declare Manhattan Island a" sensitive place "just because it is generally crowded and protected by the New York Police Department. There is no such thing, "he writes.
Conservative justice also noted the plain language of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment, which protects the right to "hold and retain the right to arm". He described maintenance and support as two separate things, and stated that Heller defined a "bear" as "wearing, enduring, or carrying." According to Thomas, this means public carrying. Because it's not common for someone to wear a gun on a holster at home, it's "stored" somewhere.
In the opinion on page 63, the historical restrictions on carrying pistols that New York relied on were also investigated. Thomas points out that centuries-old regulations focused on "dangerous and rare weapons", whereas today's pistols are relatively common and do not justify current restrictions. I explained. You might have thought that pistols were dangerous and rare in the colonial era, but there was an opinion that they are "typical self-defense weapons" in modern times. "
Senator to advance bipartisan gun regulation legislation
Court opinion also retains and retains right to arm The right to the second amendment for is bound by otherlower standards than the constitutional right
"We are special to government officials I do not know of any other constitutional right that an individual can exercise only after demonstrating a necessary need. It is how Article 1 of the Constitutional Amendment works with respect to the free exercise of unpopular speech and religion. Not. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works with respect to the defendant's right to confront the witnesses, and it is how the Constitutional Amendment Article 2 with respect to public carrying for self-defense. Doesn't it work? " Mr. Breyer is enthusiastic about gun violence and recent events. 45,222 Americans killed by firearms in the United States in 2020, the number of mass shootings already carried out in 2022, and how gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.
"Many states are trying to address some of the dangers of gun violence by passing laws that limit who can buy in different ways, carry or vary. We use different types of firearms, "Brayer wrote. APP
Breyer acknowledged the legitimate purpose of the gun. As a kind of employment like h sports, self-defense, or security guards, but he is the elected official to balance "these legal uses and the dangers of firearms" in creating legislation. Said that it was the responsibility of.
"The price advises humility and restraint as judges interpret and apply Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment," he said.
