WASHINGTON- In a significant victory for Second Amendment rights, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion which struck down a New York State law that required applicants for concealed carry permits to show ‘special need’ beyond self-defense.
The case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen, was decided among ideological lines in a 6-3 decision.
“The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, was brought by two men in New York state after they were denied requests for permits to carry firearms outside their home because the licensing officer determined they hadn’t demonstrated they needed the weapons for self-defense,” reported Time Magazine. ‘
“The plaintiffs argued that standard was had become unattainable and gave too much discretionary power to licensing officers, who are either local judges or law enforcement officers.”
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.
We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote, according to The Hill. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Repercussions from this SCOTUS decision could have ramifications in states with similar laws.
“Along with New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have similar “may-issue” concealed-carry laws, which only grant permits to applicants who can prove they have a sufficient reason for wanting one,” Time reported.
But beyond the obvious angle, the ruling went further. The Justices ruled in such a way that it affected every gun owner in the country — not just those in states which required one to prove a need for a gun.
Their ruling went on to say that the Second Amendment allows Americans to own and carry a firearm outside their home.
The previous ruling, Heller vs. D.C. in 2008, only established that Americans had a right to own firearms on their own private property.
This obviously expands that definition to something a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers intended.
Reaction from the left was typical and swift.
New York’s Governor tweeted angrily:
Hochul, who assumed the office only after her running mate Andrew Cuomo was forced to resign in disgrace, went on:
It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul tweeted. “In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options – including calling a special session of the legislature. Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence.”
Former MSNBC talk show host Keith Olbermann took to Twitter in a typically histrionic fashion, appearing to support the doctrine of nullification.
“It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States, Olbermann tweeted. The first step is for a state the “court” has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings?”
So the minute the Supreme Court makes a ruling the left doesn’t like…it needs to be disbanded?
They truly are dangerous and revolutionary radicals.
For gun owners, the SCOTUS decision is a resounding victory for the Second Amendment.
The left has been pushing their propaganda RELENTLESSLY for decades, but rulings like this just make it more obvious by the day that their arguments are just smoke and mirrors.
“Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.