In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court has ruled a New York gun law that restricted concealed carry unconstitutional. Fox News. The ruling states that New York's law, which required applicants to show "proper cause" was too restrictive as it said carrying for self defense was not enough. The court argued that violated not only the 2nd Amendment but the 14th Amendment as well, and also ignored previous precedent set by Heller and McDonald, two major gun rights cases that were the last ones to be decided by the court. However, the ruling said that it was constitutional to require a license to carry, but that the license had to be obtainable for a normal person. The opinion also lamented that the 2nd Amendment was being treated as if it was not equal to other Amendments. Three liberal justices disagreed and cited gun violence as the reason. However, Justice Alito pointed out that the gun law in place in New York did not do a thing to stop the most recent mass shooting there in Buffalo.
The name of the case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
My Comment:
This is obviously a huge win for gun rights and is the most important ruling that SOCTUS has done this term. And yes, that include the probable ruling on abortion tomorrow, which I will most certainly cover if/when it happens. No other right is so vital to the survival of the United States than the right to keep and bear arms.
The ruling has essentially banned "may issue" or "no issue" CCW schemes and forced the six states that still had may issue into a shall issue scheme. Breyer actually does a good job explaining the difference between the three schemes in his dissent, even though he was arguing against the ruling. But as a review, "may issue" means that the government can decline a permit to a law abiding citizen if they feel like it. Shall issue means they have to give the permit to anyone who qualifies.
Given that 44 states are shall issue now, with many having moved onto permit less "constitutional carry" schemes, New York's law really was an outlier. In New York you basically couldn't get a permit in New York City unless you had connections because they would reject for most reasons. The high level of crime rampant in New York City was not a valid reason under this law, which is idiotic. Of course the idea that they could reject someone's permit that could lawfully own a gun was always an obvious violation of rights and directly went against the 2nd Amendment.
I am assuming that all of the remaining "may issue" states will have to now update their laws and practices so that they will become "shall issue" states. However, I do wonder how this will work in practice. States like New York, New Jersey and California are insanely against gun rights and may do whatever they can to make the right hard to exercise. I am thinking they may try something like huge fees for applying or slow walking applications to prevent people from exercising their rights. Indeed, I fear that some states might simply ignore the SOCTUS ruling here. Keith Olbermann, a dangerously insane man, has suggested just that.
I don't think their arguments have any merit though. The world has not ended as the country has largely moved on from may issue and no issue CCW schemes. America does have mass shooting problem, but there is evidence that the situation would be much worse if it wasn't for CCW as there have been many mass shootings that were either stopped or prevented due to armed Americans.
This has been some rare good news in terms of gun rights. As SCOTUS has ruled against a major gun control scheme the Senate is pushing their own nonsense, with the betrayal of 14 GOP senators. This ruling puts that law, which would include red flag laws and restrictions on 18-20 year-olds, in jeopardy. It might take years to get through the courts, assuming that the ruling doesn't actually change some senators minds. Justice Thomas has a new standard that the courts must consider when evaluating gun laws and it essentially bans using "think of the children" as an excuse. The only thing they can consider is America's historical relationship with guns. Under this standard "assault weapon" bans would likely be ruled unconstitutional as Americans have owned military grade firearms for the entire existence of the country.
The Democrats, predictably, are acting like the sky is falling. It makes little sense at the ruling was fairly limited in its scope at this time. It merely brings a few blue states in line with the rest of the country. But it's not the law that matters here, it's the fact that the court actually ruled in favor of gun rights at a time they want them completely eliminated. The fight for gun rights is far from over and I hope that this ruling means that the court will take up more gun rights cases in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment