Election 2020 Politics

Supreme Court says N.Y. gun law is too restrictive, violates right to carry guns outside home for self-defense

Placeholder while article actions load

The Supreme Court on Thursday said Americans generally have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense and that a New York law requiring special need for such a permit is too restrictive.

The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority and the court’s three liberals in dissent.

“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Thomas wrote, saying New York’s requirement of a specific need to carry a weapon violates that right.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote: “Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence … by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

Enacted more than a century ago, New York’s law requires those who want to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense to show a specific need for doing so. Its “proper cause” law is similar to regulations in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

The decision has taken on new significance in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Tex., that have renewed calls for stricter gun regulations.

The Senate this week advanced a bill after 20 senators — 10 from each party — signed on to a framework agreement that coupled modest new gun restrictions with some $15 billion in new federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades.

If passed, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would be the most significant new gun restrictions since the 1990s. But it falls far short of the broader gun-control measures that President Biden and other Democrats have called for, such as a new assault weapons ban or restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment bestowed an individual the right to keep a gun in the home for personal defense rather than related to military service.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck a law that severely restricted gun ownership, but answered only part of what it means to “keep and bear arms.”

But it is not until now that the court has taken up the question of what it means to “bear” arms.

Supreme Court could soon make it easier to carry guns in six states

The two people challenging the law — Robert Nash and Brandon Koch — have licenses to carry handguns for hunting and target practice. But New York authorities denied their requests for “unrestricted” licenses for self-defense because officials said they could not show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”

During the two-year period of 2018 and 2019, at least 65 percent of applicants in New York were approved for an “unrestricted” license, according to a state analysis of records submitted to the court

Since the 2008 decision, lower courts have generally sided with states that restrict the right when determining how the Second Amendment applies beyond people’s homes. The justices have turned down numerous requests from gun rights advocates to review those decisions.

Scalia’s opinion made clear that the Second Amendment is not unlimited and identified several lawful restrictions, including bans in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings. But recently four conservative members of the court — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — have expressed frustration about their colleagues’ apparent reluctance to reenter the gun debate.

During November’s argument, the six conservative justices expressed varying levels of support for the two people challenging New York’s law with backing of a National Rifle Association affiliate.

Twenty-five states do not require a permit to carry a firearm in public, while several others require permits but do not ask applicants to justify their need for a weapon.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen.


You may also like