Posted on 06/23/2022 7:41:59 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
Ruling in favor of guns outside the home, big win for the 2nd amendment
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Maybe even "Constitutional Carry".
I’d prefer ‘throttle’ to ‘rattle’, but anything that makes them miserable is a good thing.
Yeah, I read his dissent until the drool started dripping and the eyes glazed over. Talk about long winded.
-for some reason the "full faith and credit" clause doesn't cover pistol permits, bar association requirements, etc.,--
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-
—————— 1The dissent makes no effort to explain the relevance of most of the incidents and statistics cited in its introductory section (post, at 1–8) (opinion of BREYER, J.). Instead, it points to studies (summarized later in its opinion) regarding the effects of “shall issue” licensing regimes on rates of homicide and other violent crimes. I note only that the dissent’s presentation of such studies is one-sided. See RAND Corporation, Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime (Apr. 22, 2022), https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealedcarry/violent-crime-html; see also Brief for William English et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“The overwhelming weight of statistical analysis on the effects of [right-to-carry] laws on violent crime concludes that RTC laws do not result in any statistically significant increase in violent crime rates”); Brief for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[P]opulation-level data on licensed carry is extensive, and the weight of the evidence confirms that objective, non-discriminatory licensed-carry laws have two results: (1) statistically significant reductions in some types of violent crime, or (2) no statistically significant effect on overall violent crime”); Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[O]ver the period 1991–2019 the inventory of firearms more than doubled; the number of concealed carry permits increased by at least sevenfold,” but “murder rates fell by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 per 100,000 in 2019” and “[v]iolent crimes plummeted by over half ”).
defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury. Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect
—————— 2NYPD statistics show approximately 6,000 illegal guns were seized in 2021. A. Southall, This Police Captain’s Plan To Stop Gun Violence Uses More Than Handcuffs, N. Y. Times, Feb. 4, 2022. According to recent remarks by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, the NYPD has confiscated 3,000 firearms in 2022 so far. City of New York, Transcript: Mayor Eric Adams Makes Announcement About NYPD Gun Violence Suppression Division (June 6, 2022), https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-themayor/news/369-22/trascript-mayor-eric-adams-makes-announcementnypd-gun-violence-suppression-division. Cite as: 597 U. S. ____
themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year. Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 5. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report commissioned by former President Barack Obama reviewed the literature surrounding firearms use and noted that “[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns . . . have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Priorities for Research To Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence 15–16 (2013) (referenced in Brief for Independent Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae 19–20). Many of the amicus briefs filed in this case tell the story
I read the entire opinion. It’s clear, unambiguous and broad in scope. Thomas refers to Heller and McDonnell and its established legal tests. This is huge. It will take years to change anything but it’s a great foundation for saving 2A.
Any fee on a CCW would be the equivalent to a poll tax.
I’ve been a fan since I was in high school seeing him getting harassed by Biden, Kennedy, and Howell Heflin.
Yes, I agree. It took me over six months to get my CC permit in NY years ago and it came with severe restrictions—target shooting and hunting only. This is a GREAT day for our Constitution and for New Yorkers who have had to beg for their Constitutional rights. I would say that this ruling now makes possible 50 state permit reciprocity.
Thank you, Justice Thomas! You just smacked down all of the evil bastards in New York including Cuomo (and his POS father), Hochul, Eric Adams, and every other leftist, gun hating elected moron in the state.
A win for DJT, his nominees held together. All in all a big victory for conservatives.
Let’s see if Murphy and his bitch AG Platkin try a run around on this.
Actually, there will be opinions released tomorrow, Friday, at 10am.
I doubt this will mean much in NJ. Yes, the state may eventually be forced to issue carry permits. When that happens I expect No Guns Allowed signs will go up as fast as they can be printed.
You may be able to carry from the house to the car and while walking down the street. I expect almost every building you want to enter, and many public places, will have a No Guns Allowed sign. NJ will fight this as long as it can.
This is a great ruling, but we are a long way from it having any meaningful impact in NJ.
The governor of NY said the government has rights and that this outrageous decision will be fought. Amazingly dumb.
This ruling clears the way for New York City to issue permits to citizens now. A concealed carry permit issued in any other NY county is not valid in NYC. NYC has had the ‘proper cause’ crap in place forever along with some of the highest permit fees in the state.
I wonder if it makes the idiotic Federal gun regulation legislation currently working its way through Congress unconstitutional.
—my advice as a barracks lawyer would be “don’t be the first one to try it”—
Reading the ruling, probably not. The Court didn't strike down New York's concealed weapons permitting scheme, they only struck down New York's insistence on a "special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community."
So, licenses are still constitutional as long as the criteria for obtaining one is equal for all citizens.
In other words, "Shall Issue."
good post
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.