Just what the Big Apple needs! Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law restricting concealed carry in major Second Amendment case

Daily Mail UK ^ | June 23, 2022 | Keith Griffith

[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.

[usnavy_cop_retired]

I see, in this decision, a potential to apply its analysis of history and the plain language of the first amendment to the Sullivan v NYT precedent. No one whom believes that a media entity has defamed/libeled him should be required to prove a higher standard than the everyday citizen.

Analogizing this, it makes zero sense that just because a person is “famous” that he should have to prove, to higher standard, that the media entity defamed/libeled him. If a higher standard is not allowed to exercise the right to carry a firearm than a higher standard can not be justified to prove that the media entity defamed or libeled him.