This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

Supreme Court rules against New York law limiting hidden firearms

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled that New York state law restricting individuals from taking hidden guns out of the house was unconstitutional. This is an opinion that causes the overthrow of some similar state laws. It also seeds challenges to a series of other laws that regulate firearms across the country.

In the New York State Rifle Pistol Association v Brune judgment, the court found that New York's requirement that applicants for permission to carry a pistol in public provide "just cause" violates the individual's right to arm. I ruled that I was doing it. Article 2 of the US Constitutional Amendment.

The court has passed a law in New York by imposing a subjective test that citizens who comply with the law must pass in order to exercise their right to arm. We have found that we have violated the Article 14 amendment that prevents us. Limits the ability of Americans to exercise their constitutional rights.

"We have no other constitutional rights that individuals can exercise only after showing special needs to government officials," added five other conservative judges in the court. In his opinion, Deputy Judge Clarence Thomas wrote.

All three liberal judges in the court objected, with Deputy Judge Stephen Breyer arguing that the majority ignored New York's "strong interest in preventing gun violence." did.

A major victory for gun rights groups, the two shootings in Buffalo, New York and Yuvalde, Texas stimulated Congress's support for a new law aimed at reducing gun violence. It was done less than a month after that. A bipartisan, safer community law expected to pass the Senate this week will make many changes to current law, including expanding background checks on gun buyers under the age of 21.

The murderers of Buffalo and Yuvalde were both 18 years old and legally purchased weapons.

Just hours after the Supreme Court ruled the New York case on Thursday, 15 Republicans joined all 50 Democrats in the Senate to overcome filibusters and prepare for the final vote. rice field.

Advocacy reaction

Gun rights groups are the best on Thursday, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), Vice President Wayne LaPierre. I supported the court's decision. "This decision needs to clearly examine the position of the NRA and notify the legislators. Laws that impede this individual's freedom should not be passed," he said in a statement.

The reaction from gun control supporters was angry.

"Today's ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority of Congress on the verge of passing important gun safety legislation, and the overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of gun safety measures. I'm not in contact with people, "John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for gun safety, said in a statement. "Let's be clear. The Supreme Court has made this decision wrong and has chosen to put our community at even greater risk due to the increasing violence of guns nationwide."

Washington Response

The reaction to the court's ruling was in Washington's party policy, with the Democratic Party blaming the court's position and the Republican Party supporting it. It collapsed greatly along.

In a statement released by the White House, President Biden said, "This ruling is inconsistent with both common sense and the Constitution and should bother us all deeply. Horrible attacks on Buffalo and Yubaldi. And the daily gun violence that doesn't attract the public's attention has to do more as a society to protect our fellow Americans.

California State Democratic House Chairman Nancy Peroshi said: He chose to endanger the lives of more Americans. Today's decision by a radical Republican-controlled court is at home. Extending what was intended to limit the right of self-defense to a new right to bring guns into our public spaces. "

Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy said in support of this ruling. "The Constitution protects Americans' right to comply with the law of owning firearms for self-defense through Article 2 of the Amendment to the US Constitution. York will limit that right through nasty laws and regulations. But the Supreme Court has acknowledged it many times and strengthened it today. "

Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, a defender of armed rights," amended the Constitution. " Article 2 is not a second-class constitutional right. I applaud the Supreme Court for its support for the Constitution and personal freedom as Americans reaffirm their right to protect themselves and their families.

License Law Restrictions

The main basis for the Court's view is that the state states that the applicant should carry weapons and leaves. It means that it may not pass the law to create a "discretionary" system that allows hidden firearms like New York, which requires showing evidence of "special need"

in the future. The gun licensing law has become a so-called "issuance" system under which those who objectively adhere to a set of requirements, including things, like criminal history checks, firearm training, and mental health assessments — licenses. Is guaranteed to be received.

However, gun rights activists quickly pointed out that the decision was written in a way that opens the door to a law that goes far beyond the law governing hidden carry permits. Legal challenge.

History as a Guide

In opinion, Thomas has two steps on how many courts analyze the constitutionality of gun law: Determined by applying the process of. We believe that both the history of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment and the interests of the government in law enforcement are incorrect.

"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it's one step too much," he wrote.

In the decision of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment, he wrote, courts should not weigh the government's interests in promoting public health or other purposes with restrictions on gun rights. rice field.

In such cases, the court has only one consideration. "Government needs to proactively prove that firearms regulation is part of a historical tradition that defines the scope of right to arm."

In a dissenting opinion, Breyer in the United States He gave a long explanation of the issue of gun violence and said that limiting the government's ability to consider public security concerns in assessing the constitutionality of gun law was wrong for the majority.

"The courts are in the state's interests in preventing gun violence, the validity of the disputed law in achieving that benefit, and how much the law bears the rights of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. Or, where appropriate, a less restrictive alternative. "

'You name it'

The gun rights group has abolished the "two-part test" for many other guns. Restrictions that we consider to be an opportunity to overturn.

In an interview with VOA, Sam Paredes, executive director of gun owners in California and a member of the board of directors of gun owners in the United States, said the ruling was a challenge to ban large-capacity weapons. Said to open the door. Magazine bans, waiting periods for gun purchases, etc.

"You name it, it's all over," Paredes said. "Practically all gun control laws that affect the individual's right to obtain, use, store, possess, travel and dispose of firearms by law-abiding citizens will be at risk by a Supreme Court ruling. Opportunity to restore the second amendment to its original intent. ”

'Increased firearm-related deaths'

Johns Hopkins University Gun violence Tim Carrie, Law and Policy Advisor at the Solution Center, told VOA: He agrees that the ruling is very likely to challenge existing gun law further.

"There will be a wave of proceedings over the firearms regulations that have been generally accepted for many years," he said. When asked what that means for the country, Carrie replied on behalf of the Gun Violence Solutions Center.

"As a public health organization, as a result of this ruling ... there are more firearms in public and therefore more firearm-related casualties in public. I'm looking forward to it. "