Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for 2A

Jun 23 , 2022

Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for 2A

The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The 6-3 ruling was the court’s second important decision on the right to “keep and bear arms.” In a landmark 2008 decision, the court had said for the first time that the amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms, although the decision was limited to keeping guns at home for self-defense.

The court has now taken that ruling to the next step after years of ducking the issue and applied the Second Amendment beyond the limits of homeowners’ property in a decision that could affect the ability of state and local governments to impose a wide variety of firearms regulations.

The case involved a New York law that required showing a special need to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state bans carrying handguns openly, but it allows residents to apply for licenses to carry them concealed.

The law at issue said, however, that permits could be granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need — a requirement that went beyond a general desire for self-protection.

Gun owners in the state sued, contending that the requirement made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to get the necessary license. They argued that the law turned the Second Amendment into a limited privilege, not a constitutional right.

The court agreed with the challengers and struck down the heightened requirement, but it left the door open to allowing states to impose limits on the carrying of guns.

"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,'” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the ruling does not bar states from imposing licensing requirements for carrying handguns for self-defense, such as fingerprinting, background checks and mental health records checks.

New York's law was "problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense" — in effect, denying citizens the right to carry a gun to protect themselves, he wrote.

In a dissent joined by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, Buffalo, New York, and elsewhere, saying it is "often necessary" for the court to consider gun violence in deciding Second Amendment issues.

Older Post Newer Post

Related Posts

Major Stephen Pless: Landing a bird amidst overwhelming enemy fire to rescue wounded
Major Stephen Pless: Landing a bird amidst overwhelming enemy fire to rescue wounded
Major Stephen W. Pless, a United States Marine Corps helicopter pilot during the Vietnam War, became a legendary figu...
Read More
One Man Tank Killer Earns Medal of Honor
One Man Tank Killer Earns Medal of Honor
Sp5c. Dwight Johnson, a tank driver with Company B, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on this day in 1968. ...
Read More
Combat Killing Spree over his brother being killed in action
Combat Killing Spree over his brother being killed in action
Staff Sergeant Ronald E. Rosser, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, epitomizes extraordinary heroism and represents t...
Read More


  • 23 Jun 2022 PTB

    It’s about time the Supreme Court supported the Constitution! This is truly a triumph for the American people and the 2nd Amendment! The government make law abiding Americans sound like a bunch of lawless thugs! They bring up mass killings like it was done by lawful citizens when had there been 2-3 or More Armed citizens I truly feel the outcome would have been entirely different. Law enforcement and government officials Need to apprehend the criminals and let We The People have Our freedoms!

  • 23 Jun 2022 David R. Martinez

    Our gun right were taken from us one small step at a time so to reverse this unconstitutional power grab I suppose it’ll take one small step at a time in the other direction. Still this decision gives me hope.

  • 23 Jun 2022 Mario Carrasco

    That three justices were concerned with gun violence in writing their dissenting decision in unbelievable. That is not a consideration under the 2nd amendment. Nowhere in the bill of rights does it say you have the right to bear arms unless there is a rise in violence.

  • 23 Jun 2022 Dan Wild

    Some States claim certain citizens cannot afford the cost of an official ID card and therefore States prohibit a requirement to show ID in order to Vote.
    The same concept needs to apply for a citizen who wants to be armed in public. The armed citizen must not be forced to meet expensive requirements in order to exercise their Right.

  • 23 Jun 2022 Charles Brooks

    I’ll train all day! Range time is therapy for me. The rest of the requirements, licensing and fingerprinting are a pain, but you knew they’d tack that on. I’ll take the win for what it is though.

Leave a comment