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.
Related Posts
The Biggest Badass You've Never Heard Of - CSM George A. Vidrine Sr
The Nazi SS Officer That Became a Green Beret, Died in combat, and is Buried at Arlington
THE REAPER: The 3rd Ranger Battalion’s Deadliest Sniper
10 Comments
One small step to restoring the 2nd Amendment. CA has a long way to go. Need to eliminate the bans on semi autos and the pistol roster next.
SO does that mean that they left us with the possibility that other onerous requirements could be imposed on those wishing to exercise their rights — such as limitless hours of required ‘training’, tighter requirements for the background checks ( like excluding anyone with a 30 year old misdemeanor) , etc.?
The Bill of Rights are enumerated rights of the individual, not the State, never to be infringed. Americans have these unique rights because the founders knew the State could be run by tyrants and democracy, alone, was not enough to safeguard our liberty and freedom.
“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."
This clearly indicates that said justices do not understand the concept of limited and enumerated constitutional powers. They should sue their law schools to get their money back and retire from the SCOTUS.
The permitting of a constitutional right is illegal also. The permitting part should not have been upheld.