GUN RIGHTS VICTORY AT SCOTUS
Everything You need to know about New York State Rifle Association v Bruen
New York state law requires people applying for a concealed carry permit to demonstrate “proper cause” before they’re granted their concealed carry license.
That means the NY state government requires someone to prove that they have a unique need to carry a gun outside their home before they can get their permit.
Two individuals, along with the New York State Rifle Association, have challenged this law, saying it infringes on their 2nd amendment rights, and have argued it all the way to the Supreme Court.
WHY THE CASE MATTERS
How many of us carry outside of our homes, to keep ourselves and our families safe? r? There are tens of millions of Americans across our country everyday who choose to carry a concealed firearm for self defense.
Unfortunately, no one can predict when danger will strike. We know our communities are safer when a responsible, law abiding gun owner is present. So to think you would need to “prove” proper cause to carry your firearm outside your home, to be able to defend yourself and your loved ones, is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
And thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees.
How far can a state government go in placing limits or conditions on your constitutionally-protected right to carry a concealed firearm?
Currently there are nine states, including New York, that have “may issue” jurisdictions. This case set the precedent that other state laws restricting concealed carry permits in this way are unconstitutional.
The Court held in a 6-3 decision, that the restrictive New York law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The court holds that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution 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.
HEAR FROM THE JUSTICES
“Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of ‘bear’ naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,’ and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.”Justice Clarence Thomas
“Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances. The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose.”Justice Samuel Alito
“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.”Justice Samuel Alito
“The Court correctly holds that New York’s outlier “may-issue” licensing regime for carrying handguns for self-defense violates the Second Amendment.”Justice Brett Kavanaugh
“Court explains, New York’s outlier may-issue regime is constitutionally 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. Those features of New York’s regime— the unchanneled discretion for licensing officials and the special-need requirement—in effect deny the right to carry handguns for self-defense to many “ordinary, law-abiding citizens.”Justice Brett Kavanaugh