Supreme Court invalidates New York gun control and expands hidden carry rights

Washington— Thursday's Supreme Court withdrewNew York State Lawand put hidden firearms in public Strictly restricted carrying with. It is unconstitutional to find a requirement that applicants seeking a hidden carry license show a special need for self-defense.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled a 108-year-old New York law limiting who could obtain a license to carry a hidden pistol in public. Overturned the ruling of the lower court in favor of. Proponents of the bill warned that a High Court ruling invalidating it could threaten gun control in some states and lead to more firearms on the streets of the city.

Judge Clarence Thomas submitted a majority opinion to an ideologically divided court, and New York's "requirements for justification" ensure that citizens who comply with the law have the right to Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. He said that the licensing system was unconstitutional, preventing him from exercising.

"The constitutional right to possess weapons in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, but a completely different set of rules. Other bills of rights are guaranteed, "written Thomas. "We know no other constitutional right that individuals can only exercise after showing special needs to government officials. It is the First Amendment when it comes to unpopular speech and the free exercise of religion. It's not how Article 1 works. The amendment works for the defendant's right to confront the witnesses, and how the second amendment works for public carrying for self-defense.

Judge Stephen Breyer disputes the liberal wings of the court, mentioning the increasing violence of guns and the ubiquity of firearms in the United States, and the stricter firearms law. The states working to pass the law warned that it would be "severe." He burdened the court's decision.

"In my view, when the court interprets Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment, it is constitutionally appropriate to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence leading the state to regulate firearms. And in fact it is often necessary, "Brayer wrote. "The Second Circuit did so and claimed that New York State law did not violate Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. I support that claim."

The court's decision was May. Immediately after a series of gunfire incidents from mid-to-early June, it shook the country and prompted Congress to seek consensus on thelegislative plan again. Suppressing Gun ViolenceOn May 14, a racially discriminatory shooter fired at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, killing 10 peopleTen days later, 19 children and two teachers were slaughtered in amass shooting at an elementary schoolin Yuvalde, Texas. Then, on June 1, four people were fatally shot dead at themedical building in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Judgment shows the first expansion of gun rightssince 2008, US Constitutional Amendment Article 2 Homes Firearms for Self-Defense When the Supreme Court grants protection of the right to keep in. The New York court battle has also been the largest amended Article 2 proceeding in court since the 2008 decision, and the2010 decisionhas the right to put a pistol in the home. States to apply. situation. Proponents of gun rights had hopeA conservative majority of 6-3 in the Supreme Court, Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment made firearms public. It will allow you to protect your right to carry on the ground.

In agreement with Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Judge John Roberts, Kavanaugh did not prohibit the court's ruling from imposing license requirements for the state to carry pistols. He said he was leaving the existing regime of the 43 states untouched. Instead, it only affects the stricter licensing rules in effect in six states, including New York.

President Biden said in his statement that he was "extremely disappointed with the decision" and again urged the state to enact legislative changes to curb gun violence. did.

"This ruling is inconsistent with both common sense and the Constitution and should bother us all deeply," he said.

New York's permit law, at the heart of the conflict, dates back to 1913 and asked residents to take their guns out of the house to give them a "reasonable reason" to get them. The state court states that it is requesting. "The special need for self-defense."

The two plaintiffs in the case, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, each applied for a carry license, but the licensing officer could not establish a good reason to carry a pistol in public. I refused the application. The two have been granted a "restricted" license to carry firearms for targeted shooting, hunting, and outdoor activities.

Together with the New York State Rifle Pistol Association, Nash and Koch challenged the constitutionality of a ban on pistols in public places in New York and the requirements for good reason in 2018. The Federal District Court dismissed their proceedings, and the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed this decision, leaving the licensing system intact.

Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hokul criticized the Supreme Court's ruling, saying on Twitter that "the Supreme Court carries hidden weapons at the moment of national evaluation of gun violence. Recklessly broke New York law limiting who can do it. "

New York Mayor Eric Adams said the court's ruling "puts New Yorker at additional risk of gun violence." .. He promises to carry out a "comprehensive review" of the approach that defines where firearms are prohibited from being carried and to review the application process so that only qualified persons can obtain a carrying license. did.

"This decision may have opened an additional river that waters the sea of ​​gun violence, but we will do everything we can to stop it. "He said.

Half of the states generally require a permit issued by the state to carry hidden firearms in public, of which about six states, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, NJ — Allows people to carry firearms in public only when necessary. In these half-dozen states, government officials have the discretion to refuse a license, even if the applicant meets statutory standards.

New York officials and the Byden administration, who called on the Supreme Court to uphold the law, said in a November oral argument that invalidating the bill had a domino effect, putting it at risk as well as state restrictions. He warned the judge that he might be exposed. Some limit public transport in places where people gather, such as airports, arenas, churches, and schools.

Some judges seemed concerned about how the broader judgment would affect the restrictions placed on places where large numbers of people gather. For example, Roberts questioned whether states and cities could ban firearms in soccer stadiums and places where alcohol was served, and Judge Amy Coney Barrett said guns in "sensitive places" such as Times Square on New Year's Eve. I asked about the ban.

In favor, Judge Samuel Alito criticized Breyer's opposition to the recent mass shootings.

"Do you think the dissenting opinion is that a law like New York will prevent or prevent such atrocities? If you know it is illegal to take a pistol out of the house, Can anyone who is obsessed with performing mass shootings be stopped, and how does the objection explain the fact that one of the shootings at the top of the list took place in Buffalo? He wrote. "The New York law in question in this case clearly did not stop the perpetrator."