In a 6-3 ruling [pdf HERE] the Supreme Court has ruled that New York state cannot require an individual to prove a “special need” in order to carry a firearm for self-protection. The ruling, likely to have ramifications for other gun restricting states, affirms the constitutional right of an individual to carry a firearm, and blocks the efforts of states to make the individual prove they have a need for one.
Writing the majority decision Justice Clarence Thomas concluded there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, as Thomas wrote, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.” [Ruling Here]
SCOTUS BLOG – The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities. (read more)
Leftists, particularly those who have recently become drunk on power from their COVID dictates, are apoplectic about the supreme court limiting the power of government to control the constitutional rights of the individual. It’s quite remarkable to watch the far-left lash out against the institution that has the role in our government to protect the constitution.
A big day here in NY on Tuesday, our primary for governor. Hochul has to go. An unelected tyrant who picked up right where Cuomo left off.
DOJ publicly states it opposes decision by US Supreme Court!!!
Read that over 10x and understand the hell that statement suggests.
BTW, Kavanaugh’s writings clearly state the NY State requirement was too broad based and needed to include specifics like background checks etc.
So DOJ is objecting to Supreme Court not allowing subjective requirements to carrying a gun in public?
Why would that be?
Interestingly enough, many of those same leftists carrying on about having a carry permit (especially in NYC) also possess a carry permit for their safety–politicians especially. A number of years ago someone published a list of the distinguished “betters” who demand gun controls in the media, the arts, and in the government with them, and they all said that “they needed them because they feared for their safety”.
Yes but…
“In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements, Kavanaugh contended. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting.”
And what, pray tell, constitutes a “mental health” problem that would keep people from being able to obtain a firearm? Will they check if you’ve ever been on an anti-depressant? Will they check if you believe the 2020 election was stolen and corrupt? Will they accuse you of a mental health problem because you refuse to take a vaccine – which they believe proves you don’t believe in science and are therefore mentally ill?
In Hawaii we already have all those things just to get a “permit to acquire”, though the courts did strike down a requirement that once obtained, the permit must be used within 10 days or it is void. Expect Young v Hawaii County (on appeal from the Ninth Circuit) to be the next decision and will see if any more guidance comes from the court.
The gun banners here are already drafting legislation to make it as hard as possible to get any sort of carry permit (concealed or open).
Add this to the 8-1 up decision on voter ID and I’d say the communist larvae may not want to continue scaring SCOTUS’s family members in their homes.
Isn’t this the Trump Court?
What’s she going to do if someone pulls a gun on her when her armed body guards aren’t there to protect her? Time to change her granny pants.
A “right” is not exercisable only upon demonstration of any special qualification. Rights are absolute, not conditional.
Test.
Praise God!
The blind Communists in this movement may never see, but the righteous are never in darkness.