Posted on 06/23/2022 8:45:38 AM PDT by Morgana
The Supreme Court has struck down a New York law severely restricting licenses to carry a concealed weapon, in the high court's biggest Second Amendment ruling in a decade.
The 6-3 ruling on Thursday reversed a lower court's opinion, which had upheld the 108-year-old New York law restricting licenses to carry concealed weapons in public to those demonstrating a specific need or threat.
New York is not alone in severely limiting who can get a license to carry concealed in public, and the new ruling will likely make it easier to legally carry a gun in major cities including Los Angeles, Boston and Baltimore.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, writing that the New York law prevents law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The court decision comes as the Senate was poised on Thursday for a vote to advance a bipartisan gun-control bill, in what could be the first new federal gun legislation in decades.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, reacted with fury to the court ruling, saying that it flew in the face of efforts to restrict gun rights following several high-profile mass shootings.
'It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,' Hochul wrote in a tweet.
'In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options – including calling a special session of the legislature,' the governor added.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
New York will pass a new law and start the legal process over again in five, four, three...
Meanwhile over in the backstabbing offices, uh, I mean Senate, the push continues to pass unconstitutional rules and regulations. While telling the serfs it’s not in contradiction of the BOR. 🐂💩
If you fire a shot, make sure you have your lawyer on speed dial.
Everyone needs to understand that had Donald John Trump NOT been elected to office in 2016, there would be no 2nd Amendment today.
Restrictions on carrying firearms are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Red flag laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Restricting firearms purchases for adults until they are older adults is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Cornyn, Collins, Cassidy, Blunt, Burr, Portman, Capito, Murkowski, Ernst, Tillis, Romney, McConnell, Graham and Young can suck on this!
Time to begin the process of removing each and every one of these traitors to the Republic!
Look up NYC “Sullivan Gun Laws”.
It was one political gang trying to disarm the other political gang. Nothing to do with the people, their safety or the Constitution.
NYS adopted most of them.
NYS will dream up a whole new string of processes to bollocks up your inalienable right to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Let it go Wild Wild West for a year or 2,
then peace will settle over Gotham.
“If you fire a shot, make sure you have your lawyer on speed dial.”
Better to just use the standard of SSS.
“Just what the Big Apple needs! Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law restricting concealed carry in major Second Amendment case”
YES! and isn’t great!!!
If it weren’t for guns we would still be kissing the queen’s ash.
And now what Surrender Monkey Caucus?
Still think the Republicans didn’t out smart Chuckie?
The Second Amendment supports the God given right to self defense. She still doesn’t get it.
Where did I read that an increase in legal carriers in Philadelphia led to an increase in “justified homicides”, i.e. removal of bad guys by citizens executing the “taxpayer relief shot”.
True, but the intention of our Founders in the 2nd Amendment is not hunting, sport, or self defense. It was written so that We the People could shoot dead goobermint officials when they inevitably become tyrannical.
When you have places like Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and Switzerland among the least violent places on earth, she and her remarks are so breathtakingly brainless.
Being a criminal in NYC just got a little bit more dangerous.
An armed society is a polite society, dummies at the Daily Mail.
Go back to your Ukraine stories.
My favorite selected excerpts From Thomas Clarence’s Opinion...
(In Heller) we looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.”
After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct — carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does.
Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”
This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.
Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.
After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.
Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. “[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”.
The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.
The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
True, but the intention of our Founders in the 2nd Amendment is not hunting, sport, or self defense. It was written so that We the People could shoot dead goobermint officials when they inevitably become tyrannical.
Yup.
The first shots fired in the American Revolution were the result of the Crown attempting gun confiscation in Lexington.
NY will follow DC’s lead and ignore the ruling via legislation and regulations. But what about the garbage pending in Congress? Seems like it needs to be sent back for a major rewrite.
The Supreme Court’s rulings are not ignored in DC.
And nothing says that these rights should vary by resident or visited state, nor by age, nor type of arms. Yep, this will require lots of additional cases and litigation to fully recognize ‘shall not be infringed’.
This ruling only addresses the standards applied for getting a CCW permit. The pending legislation isn't related to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.