Skip to comments.SCOTUS strikes down New York CCW Scheme (DOOMERS DEEPLY SADDENED)
Posted on 06/23/2022 7:31:41 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
Thomas writes opinion.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
All of that longing for further liberal rule so they can continue to doom and groan, dead.
What is even more ironic, is that today wouldn't have even been possible if that EEVVIIILLL Mitch McConnell hadn't held firm and refused to give Garland a hearing when Scalia died.
That sound you hear? That's the sound of millions of doomers crying out in terror and then where suddenly silenced.
Today is a GREAT day for America!
Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth
Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for
self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22.
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
(2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field.
McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts
tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm
regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to
the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the
people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of
law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller,
554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.
(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today
requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are
consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today
are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in
1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the
understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v.
Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller
at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed
meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not
apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S.,
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the
Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two
relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because
“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second
Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations
when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767
(quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for
historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern
regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said,
respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan
a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.
(b) Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller
more explicit, the Court applies that standard to New York’s propercause requirement. Pp. 23–62.
(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the
Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no
party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for
self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding
also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and
Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for
self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a
home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and
confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.
2nd Amendment right protects SELF DEFENSE.
2nd Amendment right protects carry outside the home!
HISTORY AND TRADITION TEST!!!!
I hope nobody is expecting NY to comply with this ruling......
The court rejects the “two-part” approach used by the courts of appeals in Second Amendment cases. “In keeping with Heller,” Thomas writes, “we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”
There are law firms in NYS and NYC, as they have 2 different pistol permits in NY, that specialize in ONLY gun clients. They walk people through the process to get a CCW.
And depending on where you live in the state, just getting a pistol permit, there are 3 different ones, can be a royal pain in the a$$.
Oh how things will be changing. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Nice to see how this case turned out.
Texas I second your credit to McConnell.
He is the man FReepers love to hate but he may well have saved the Republic with his masterful and unapologetic work in preserving the Supreme Court. That supersedes any criticism afaic
The rejection of the “two-part test” developed by the circuit courts after Heller and McDonald is HUGE. This basically invalidates the vast majority of post-Heller circuit cases on the 2nd Amendment.
Time to go gloat on Twitter. Bunch of libs last night were claiming they had “insider” information that a couple justices had flipped on this case after Uvalde and the New York law was going to be upheld.
Scotusblogger: “I am....sad.”
I hear you. I know lots of people here have criticisms of McConnell and most other Republicans, for one reason or another. We should be fair and balanced, and give credit where due. McConnell resisted intense pressures to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court, and we should be fair and balanced enough to credit him for such actions.
Can someone take this legalese and put it in plain english?
Do you still need a permit to carry conceiled?
Can you now open carry?
What hoops do you have to jump through now?
I saw that - what an AZZ!
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Hochul just added some new laws...changing the age to own those AR-15s and the like and also marking the bullets....neither of which will do absolutely nothing to stop a killer.
what was the vote?
Thank you, Justice Thomas.
You have saved many innocent lives today.
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.