NY gun law struck down by Supreme Court-overturns 100-year-old NY law on carrying concealed weapons

In a Supreme Court split of 6-3 among party lines the state of New York unconstitutionally  restricted who gets to carry a concealed weapon in public.

“In District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

“Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, joined by joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with  Chief Justice John Roberts  declared he issue specifically  with a concurring opinion. “The Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense,” the Trump appointee wrote. “In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes — known as “shall-issue” regimes — that are employed in 43 States.”

“I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence,” As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations. I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.” Biden said.

President Joe Biden disagreed with the ruling stating a deep disappointment, one that “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution and should deeply trouble us all.” He spoke about his executive actions to prevent gun violence and asked Americans to rally for gun safety in the United States

 

. EW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 20–843. Argued November 3, 2021—Decided June 23, 2022, The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ). An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257. Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the Second Circuit’s prior decision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, which had sustained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the requirement was “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.” Id., at 96.



Related Articles

FREE

Get the most important breaking news and analyses for Free.

Thank you for subscribing

Something went wrong.