Law Supreme Court says Second Amendment guarantees right to carry guns in public - The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.

1655995616158.png

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public for self defense, finding its requirement that applicants seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun demonstrate a "proper cause" to do so in public is unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision upholding New York's 108-year-old law limiting who can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Proponents of the measure warned that a ruling from the high court invalidating it could threaten gun restrictions in several states and lead to more firearms on city streets.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically-divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-new-york-gun-law-second-amendment (A)

 

Attachments

  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar, Doc Cassidy, Koby_Fish and 46 others
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public for self defense, finding its requirement that applicants seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun demonstrate a "proper cause" to do so in public is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
If the proper cause thing is unconstitutional, does that mean the permit requirement is still considered valid and we're just going to start playing wack a mole with valid reasons to reject applications?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Koby_Fish, The Littlest Shitlord, No. 7 cat and 5 others
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Southern Comfort, TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken, IAmNotAlpharius and 48 others
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Koby_Fish, murph, notafederalagent and 12 others
Reading through the actual opinion, holy fuck Thomas is pissed at the Appeals Circuits playing games after Heller and McDonald with their intermediate scrutiny 'balancing' games which always coincidentally favor the government restricting rights.
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.
Click to expand...
His anger and based levels knows no bounds!

If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar, Humble Crab, Klamimera and 33 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back