The Supreme Court struck down a New York State gun law that required individuals to show “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry permit Thursday.
The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Keith M. Corlett, centered on two New York residents, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who both applied for concealed carry permits in Rensselaer County but were denied by the licensing officer, who said the individuals “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished [them] from the general public.”
New York bans the open carry of handguns but permits concealed carry so long as the applicant can prove “proper cause” exists. All licenses are issued by either the county sheriff or the court system.
Nash cited a string of robberies as his “proper cause” and noted he completed a firearm safety course. Koch relied on his “extensive experience in the safe handling and operation of firearms and the many safety training courses he had completed.”
The court ruled 6-3 that the “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.”
The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN a New York gun-control law that required people to show “proper cause” to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. The vote is 6-3. https://t.co/jA2Gl7lTiG
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 23, 2022
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. (RELATED: The Gun Control Legislation Will Strip You Of Rights – Than ‘Bankrupt’ You To Get Them Back)
“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,’” the court ruled. “The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.”
“The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”
“Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,” Thomas wrote for the majority. “This definition of ‘bear’ naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table.”
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt called the ruling a “monumental victory.”
“I’m proud Missouri led the briefing in this case,” Schmitt tweeted. “This case is integral to the preservation of the Second Amendment and protects Missourians and Americans’ right to self defense.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, in his dissent, wrote “only by ignoring an abundance of historical evidence supporting regulations restricting the public carriage of firearms can the Court conclude that New York’s law is not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul lamented the ruling. (RELATED: Washington Residents Rush To Gun Stores Amid State’s New Gun Control Law)
It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) June 23, 2022
“It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.”
“In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options — including calling a special session of the legislature,” Hochul wrote on Twitter. “Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence.”
President Joe Biden said he was “deeply disappointed” in the ruling.
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” he said. “I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.”
Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz praised the Court’s ruling, saying, “The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that New York’s law was unconstitutional because it unquestionably infringed on our Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”
“I was proud to lead an amicus brief on behalf of 24 of my Senate colleagues making these exact arguments. This case’s vindication of the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home is an ever-present reminder of our duty as citizens to defend our constitutional rights from brazen attacks from the left,” Cruz added.
Source: DailyCaller
Liberal states cannot require Americans to show “some special need” to exercise their constitutional right to carry guns in public for their own protection, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday morning. Instead, the court ruled, the Constitution recognizes each citizen’s right to self-defense in public places.
The 6-3 ruling struck down a New York state gun regulation that forced citizens to prove they had a “proper cause” before obtaining a concealed carry license. New Yorkers Brandon Koch and Robert Nash brought the case after the state denied their applications, even though they fulfilled all other legal stipulations, because they could not show they had a specific threat to their lives.
The 63-page ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and issued on his 74th birthday, affirms that the Constitution respects American citizens’ right to self-defense in public.
“[T]he Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” wrote Thomas in the plurality opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right’” that requires Americans provide a justification to exercise it, he wrote:
That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
At least half a dozen other states, with approximately one-quarter of the nation’s population, have “two-step” gun permit laws on the books similar to the New York statute, which legislators passed during the Progressive Era. Thursday’s ruling may affect as many as eight other states and the District of Columbia, which have a “may issue” stance on concealed carry permits.
“Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home. This ruling brings lifesaving justice to law-abiding Americans who have lived under unconstitutional regimes all across our country, particularly in cities and states with revolving door criminal justice systems, no cash bail and increased harassment of law enforcement.”
Violent crime has surged in New York City, rising 26% over 2021 levels—including a 15.4% increase in rape, a 39.7% increase in robbery, and a 19.6% surge in assault, according to an analysis of New York Police Department statistics by the New York Post.
Thursday’s decision strengthens the justices’ precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, not merely state militias.
In characteristic fashion, Thomas’ ruling also states that the Constitution should be interpreted by discerning the Founding Fathers’ original intent. This process, though difficult, is “more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to ‘make difficult empirical judgments’ about ‘the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,’” he wrote, “especially given their ‘lack [of] expertise’ in the field.”
President Joe Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed the decision, saying: “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”
The Supreme Court’s decision came even as a bipartisan coalition of senators appear poised to pass new restrictions on gun rights, including cracking down on private gun sales and incentivizing states to adopt so-called red flag laws, which allow government officials to remove firearms from an individual’s home without having been convicted.
Blue states are presently regrouping and determining how to respond to the high court’s decision. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who recently signed a fresh round of gun control laws, has warned she may call a special session of the state Legislature to pass new laws to blunt the effect of the ruling.
Since the ruling says that states may require concealed carry permits and may ban guns from “sensitive places” such as courts and schools, lawmakers had discussed broadening the category to put most public places off-limits.
Perhaps with this in mind, Thomas wrote that “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.”
The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, in the home or in public, reflects the belief that innocent life—which bears the image of God—should be protected from aggression.
“The image of human dignity that emerged from Judeo-Christian revelation and classical philosophy directly implies the right of self-defense and resistance to tyranny,” wrote John Zmirak and Jason Jones in a monograph on how Christians should view gun ownership.
In addition to joining the 6-3 opinion, Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett each filed separate concurrences, and Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent on behalf of the court’s liberal bloc, citing numerous mass shootings.
“How does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?” retorted Alito. “The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”
Originally published by The Washington Stand.
