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

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

COURTS & LAW

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

By Robert Barnes
Updated June 23, 2022 at 10:53 a.m. EDT Published June 23, 2022 at 10:48 a.m. EDT

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. (1)

"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."

{snip}

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

By Robert Barnes
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Twitter https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

(1) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/23/supreme-court-gun-control/

---

Edited to add the link, which I can't believe I forgot to include.

-- -- -- -- -- --

BREAKING: #scotus strikes NY firearm restrictions on 6-3 vote, with Thomas writing for majority (on his birthday) https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- -- --

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.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-second-amendment-guarantees-right-carry-guns-public-rcna17721

June 23, 2022, 10:34 AM EDT
By Pete Williams

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The 6-3 ruling was the court's second important decision on the right to "keep and bear arms." In a landmark 2008 decision, the court said for the first time that the amendment safeguards a person's right to possess firearms, although the decision was limited to keeping guns at home for self-defense.

The court has now taken that ruling to the next step after years of ducking the issue and applied the Second Amendment beyond the limits of homeowners' property.

[Faux pas]

1. It's

disgusting that the so-called 'supreme' court is turning the US into an anything goes, fuck everybody shithole.

[Harker]

3. Yes. And at full throttle. n/to

[Faux pas]

30. Sadly

so.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. What are they worried about? They have special protection for them and

their loved ones. Everyone else be damned.

[Faux pas]

28. The

beginning of our end started with ray-gun and the "I've got mine!" effers who came along with him and still linger on. We've been screwed for a long time.

[jmowreader]

2. Six months later...

“Gun crime in NYC is through the roof. It’s all Biden’s fault!”

[CaptainTruth]

54. THIS

[LoisB]

55. Yep.

[secondwind]

4. Oh my god.............

[underpants]

15. I said three words out loud.

WTF. Guns in the streets of New York.

[llashram]

6. somehow

that sucker and his wife have to be removed from making decisions that continue to kill and murder people. As well as taking rights away from the average citizens. After we gain a majority in both houses in November I hope Ginni and he are investigated and impeached for sedition and incompetence, respectively. I remember watching him dozing off while a case was being presented to the high court. I was aghast.

[MarcA]

45. Their Roe v Wade decision will result in many unwanted children.

Combined with their other attacks on the masses while granting special privileges to themselves perhaps clarence, ginni and their ilk should study the history of those other ceausescus.

[llashram]

71. one is waiting

in the wings...stage right.

[irisblue]

7. From Elie Mystal twitter

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=44xClNIfthI96hbOi4aq4g

[Corgigal]

8. Might explain the timing,

for the Supremes special asses to get their security.

I bet every street that they live on will be classified as a special area.

[malthaussen]

9. I expect the Court is going to pull a lot of bad decisions out of their ass this session. n/t

[Historic NY]

10. The biggest quirk in NY law was the NYC required an approved license for the city

and denied the state license to carry as sufficient. What will this do to permitting? WTFK

[LudwigPastorius]

51. Any license based on a "need to defend" has...

been struck down.

If the city or state still wants to make it necessary to get a license to carry, they’ll have to craft laws that specify a different requirement, such as certification in arms safety, or qualification with a defined course of training.

[milestogo]

11. Does it apply to the property of the conservative justices?

Oh, that's right, they make the rules to serve themselves.

[Marthe48]

12. I think NY should defy

this decision by republican activist >gag< judges, 3 of whom were seated illegally, and 1 of whom is compromised beyond belief.

The court has decided that any American in any state can carry a gun, because they liberally interpreted the 2A. OTOH, they are narrowly interpreting Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness to ban abortions. It is schizophrenic, to say the least. Why do the states have to abide by rulings made by insane and illegitimate people who don't deserve to wear those robes, much less decide on American laws? F**k them, and the criminals who put them on that bench. Get the wrongly seated and compromised people off the bench, or expand the court. It is past ridiculous to take the clown show seriously.

[melm00se]

35. The Constitution is the law of the land

ignoring it because you don't agree with it?

Seriously?

[MarcA]

40. The Constitution grants enforcement to the Executive

Branch not the Judicial Branch. Not that it wouldn't cause problems but it is Constitutional.

[Midwestern Democrat]

63. Biden would never be so irresponsible as to sanction the concept of "Screw the Supreme Court"

Rulings that the majority of this forum liked - desegregation, abortion rights, gay marriage - were enforced by the president at the time the ruling was handed down - it would be extremely hypocritical to cheerlead a president defying a ruling you don't like while demanding he enforce a ruling you do like.

[MarcA]

70. It is not a matter of "like". It's a matter of Values.

And not hypocritical at all.

[Marthe48]

41. Yes

I wouldn't ordinarily say such a thing. But 3 judges were not seated according to any precedent. A**hole mcconell made up a limit, so President Obama couldn't name a judge, so we got korsuch. Then mcconell ignored his own treachery and allowed the drunk who wasn't vetted and barbie, who doesn't know her a** from a hole in the ground. thomas is hopelessly compromised. I am never going to prop up the crimes committed by the r's. They make things up as they go along. They don't defend the Constitution of the U.S.A. They don't even seem familiar with the document. The majority are ruling one thing strictly, and another liberally. The majority aren't ruling rationally. The majority of the majority are basing their opinions on what they believe in their hearts, not what the rule of law says. I refuse to endorse their insanity.

[Polybius]

42. It would open up a can of worms

What if someone ignores NY's law (that was ignoring the SC)? What if NYPD chief's said not to arrest them, because out law is illegal?

[Marthe48]

48. I can see NY defying the court

and a monumental battle about states' rights vs federal laws. If such a thing happened, the defense for NY could bring in the questionable actions that got incompetents and criminals seated on the highest court of the land. I don't think NY would win, but I would like to see the case used to highlight the illegality of those 3 judges and the compromised position of the 4th. The current majority should bow their corrupt heads in shame, but they have no shame. And that's another reason I hate them. I always loved the honor of the people seated on the court and having those venal pukes besmirching it pisses me off entirely.

I should stop ranting for the day. I'm planning to watch the hearings, probably need to do some deep breathing.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

13. Charge $25,000 to get a permit.

Boy the NY governor is really pissed.

[ripcord]

38. You can't make rights inaccessable through onerous fines and fees

Just like demonstrators can't be required to get a $100,000,000 insurance policy to exercise their rights.

[Polybius]

44. It's already almost $400 for the application in NYC

That may be the highest anywhere in the US.

[AngryOldDem]

14. This guarantees there will be no meaningful gun reform.

This country is lost.

Just wait until next week, when SCOTUS totally blows things up.

[BeyondGeography]

16. While a Democratic House passes a bill to increase SC's personal security

It would be sad if it wasn’t so funny.

[The Grand Illuminist]

17. We are now at its closest point....

Where there may be no choice but to accept that it will take guns to get rid of guns.

[Retrograde]

18. The same Supremes who whine

and demand special protection because someone carried a gun in front of one of their houses? So it's OK to endanger lives on crowded streets and subways as long as they're not "important" people?

[Hav]

19. Just another day to send a special thank you again to

all these idiots who seriously believed that Trump would get them to their stupid revolution faster and that the SC doesn't matter.

[JohnSJ]

25. Those idiots have no credibility. This was so predictable

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

20. This is worse then I thought it would be

Haven't read the full opinion yet, just got snippets from it sent to me from another lawyer friend.

This is not a narrow ruling. It blows up the standards of review that the courts were using. Thomas rejects both intermediate and strict scrutiny and sets the standard as text, history, and tradition. The benefits of the law can not be considered. This doesn't just blow up NY's law, this could blow up many, many gun laws. I'll read through the decision later today.

[Sgent]

26. Since when has history

been a standard of review? I've read the court's summary and yea, they dismiss the standards used for every other constitutional rights.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

33. I honestly don't know

I can't think of anything that uses this review standard that Thomas as set forth for the 2nd Amendment.

[AngryOldDem]

21. All I know is, I don't want to hear these assholes screaming that the govt. wants their damn guns.

Might as well hand them out like candy.

Trump’s court is destroying the U.S., but then again, everything that fucker touches dies.

[JohnSJ]

22. What the hell did people think was going to happen when trump won in 2016?

It will only get worse from here on

Anyone who is upset about this who didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016, should have thought about that in 2016

[bucolic_frolic]

23. Honestly I think we should strike Marbury v. Madison down by EO and see what they try to do about it

Let's get the lawyers moving on this NRA tyranny

[patphil]

24. Where will it end?

This will go really bad, really quickly.
Nationwide open carry means an already horrible situation will get a lot worse.
Please note this was a party line vote.

I think the Republicans want people to be afraid.
I have a question for them, If you Republicans succeed in gaining control of the legislature and the presidency, and the courts, how are you going to handle this when your agenda of dictatorial rule becomes a way of life in the United States?
I don't know of a single dictator who wants his citizens to be armed. It may be a good means to an end, but, going down the road, a dictator will find it impossible to force people to do what he want as long as all those guns are out there.

As I said, this will go really bad, really quickly.

[Xoan]

27. WE NEED A NEW COURT. ASAP

[IronLionZion]

29. Trump packed the courts with RW extremists

so we get RW rulings on important stuff

[bronxiteforever]

31. Kick & recommend for visibility

England is a cup of tea.
France, a wheel of ripened brie.
Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
America is a gun…
-Brian Bilston

[RevBrotherThomas]

32. OMG

It's the f**king Wild Wild West.

[in2herbs]

34. When Congress recently approved additional security for USSC judges it was

clear to me that even the Democrats in Congress think of us as "others." People are clamoring to expand the court, and I agreed until today's opinions. IMO the action to take to reverse the course the conservative judges have shoved on this country is not to expand the justices on the USSC but to shrink its budget so that is suffocates. Nothing in the Constitution demands 9 justices.

We have to accept that USSC judges have life time appointments, but there is no law or constitutional guarantee that the salary and benefits that USSC judges receive cannot be modified by Congress. The USSC budget is obtained from Congress.

The USSC is corporation-friendly so address the USSC issue the same as corporations do when they want to get rid of employees --- through pay/benefit reductions or layoffs. Start with a 50% USSC budget cut. If the reduced funding is insufficient to sustain all of the 9 current justices and their staff, well then, some of the justices will have to be succumb to a lay off, or they'll have to accept significantly lower pay and benefits and perform the work that their staff currently performs. The USSC also should be prohibited, for example, from moving money around and using funding for maintenance on salaries and benefits.

[Dysfunctional]

36. Congress controls the federal budget.

We would need a supermajority to cut their budget.

[in2herbs]

39. Then the Ds need to inform the voters that more Ds are needed in Congress to

reverse the course the USSC is taking. Maybe there'd be some Rs who would cross over if they thought meaningful gun legislation would get passed if the USSC budget was cut.

[The Mouth]

62. "It's a big club. And you ain't in it"

George Carlin.

[ripcord]

37. Permits are still required to carry concealed

They just removed the show cause because it is subjective. People don't understand what a big deal the 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS decisions were, they decided that not only do Americans have the individual and fundamental right to own firearms but they enjoined it with the 14th Amendment.

[NullTuples]

46. How did they go from "well ordered militia" to, "everyone for themselves" ?

[ripcord]

47. I have no idea

But it doesn't matter at this point, it is the law of the land.

[housecat]

49. Thomas writes?

[SergeStorms]

50. Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts?

A good guess would be the NRA, or someone associated with it.

These fascist SC "justices" are out of fucking control.

[NoMoreRepugs]

52. I'm confused. When it serves the whackadoodles desires the SCOTUS sides with "states rights" - when

it doesn't then "states rights" be damned?

[Zeitghost]

59. Incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th amendment

Just like the 1st amendment is not limited to laws passed by Congress, after McDonald vs Chicago, the 2nd amendment now applies to the states.

[bucolic_frolic]

53. That's basically Stand your ground wherever you are!

Thanks for the warning. Should be a OK-Corral weekend at stores and public places, and think of the celebrations on July 4th!

[BidenRocks]

56. Meanwhile in the old West,

Check yer shootiin' irons at the sheriff's office.
So much fot the 2nd!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

57. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Bruen is a perfect example of what I call a "pivotal concurrence"

ConstitutionalMischiefHat Retweeted

Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Bruen is a perfect example of what
@barryfriedman1

@susansmelcer

@WashUChancellor
and I call a "pivotal concurrence." https://cornelllawreview.org/2020/07/29/divide-concur-separate-opinions-legal-change/ What's that, you ask? 🧵

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

69. This thread is worth the read

Likely too early in the stages of grief for it to get much attention… but well-reasoned and succinct

[SpankMe]

58. Now that there's basically open carry everywhere...

...I predict that one of the biggest consequences will be kids and teens getting their hands on the adults' guns lying around and killing other people. Now that everyone can take a gun out with them just like a purse or wallet, loaded guns will be hanging on the coat rack or sitting on the counter because who wants to deal with opening a locked gun safe each time they need to go to the store for Oreos?

The relaxation of gun restrictions since Trump has lead to the highest number of gun deaths in a year in US history - over 45,000 in 2020. Source. This will get worse.

States and citizens must respond with as much gusto as possible - even the ridiculous:

• Require licensing to own a gun (just like a drivers license)
• Require training for each gun type you own (just like there are different training and licensing requirements for operators of cars vs. motorcycles vs. semi trucks)
• Require registration of each weapon by serial number
• Make holstering a requirement and make brandishing a felony (the gun must remain holstered in the absence of a real threat)
• Increase penalty for use of guns used in non life threatening situations (i.e., use of gun in road rage incidents gets $100k fine plus prison time)
• Add to the list of people who have "standing" to sue for certain uses of a gun (i.e., give everyone the right to sue when a gun is used for anything other than imminent danger to life - just like the Texas abortion law)
• Allow people to sue gun manufacturers for the mayhem their products create.
• Limit and control the purchase of ammunition to include a tax of $10 for every bullet purchased. (Federal and state taxes together for cigarettes can add up to over $5 per pack in many states. This has resulted in a decrease in smoking. You can have all the guns you want, but you gotta be real economical with your ammo.)
• Publicly shame and stigmatize open-carriers as outcasts; treat them as if they are pedophiles
• Legally enhance the ability of private businesses to ban guns on their property.

I know gun nuts will sue states for undue burden on some of this. But the longer we hold this up in court - the more noise we make on this - the more we can turn public sentiment against these instruments of death and intimidation.

What else can we add to this list? Let's make some noise.

[C Moon]

60. Are these people owned and paid for, or what?

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2022, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

And done just before what will probably be one of the most important elections in US history. That new SCOTUS decision should keep many away from the polls.

What are they going to do about mail-in voting now? That's the big thorn the gop's side.

[bluestarone]

61. A question i've ALWAYS had here is the courts are full steam ahead for gun freedoms, BUT

NOT ALLOWED in their court? What the fuck are they scared of? I'm ALL FOR gun control, BUT if it's allowed it should be allowed in their courts as well!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

64. Statement by President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Ruling on Guns

Link to tweet

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/23/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-supreme-court-ruling-on-guns/

Statement by President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Ruling on Guns
JUNE 23, 2022
•
STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since 1911, the State of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self-defense and to acquire a license. More than a century later, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to strike down New York’s long-established authority to protect its citizens. This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.

In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans. I remain committed to doing everything in my power to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. I have already taken more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other President during their first year in office, and I will continue to do all that I can to protect Americans from gun violence.

I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations.

I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.

[ificandream]

65. Wondering if historically this decision will be the worst one.

I think this beats the eventual abortion decision in terms of most detrimental impact. This Court will certainly be remembered but not in a good way.

[raising2moredems]

66. Besides upping the license fee..

All firearms carried in public should be strapped to the groin area. Serves two purposes - 1) we know said person is armed and 2) we know these are the only cajones said person has.

So we'll recap the 40+ years since raygun and the small "r's" crawled into bed with the religious nuts:

1 - God - check and hope the first non "christian" religion school files suit against TX for state funding
2 - Guns - check - all guns all the time except in courthouses of course

Next up should be gays (as in marriage) but could be a Griswold challenge. BUT I hope it is a revisit of Loving v. State of VA. Would like to see the other five wingnuts on the court twist themselves into knots trying to shut down that decision being "egregious".

[Polybius]

67. It's already $350+ in NYC, pass or fail

I think raising it to $1,000+ would be struck down, as it unfairly hurts the poor, such as a poll tax did decades ago when it was struck down.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

68. Winning Lawyers in Supreme Court Gun Case Leave Firm

AnyAndAllThingsHat Retweeted

Lawyers Paul Clement and Erin Murphy announce departure from Kirkland & Ellis after firm said it wouldn’t take any more Second Amendment cases

wsj.com
Winning Lawyers in Supreme Court Gun Case Leave Firm
Partners Paul Clement and Erin Murphy announce departure after Kirkland & Ellis said it wouldn’t take any more Second Amendment

Link to tweet

[ck4829]

72. ...