Civic Register
| 6.23.22
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law Requiring Concealed Carry Applicants to Show ‘Special Need for Self-Protection’
How do you feel about the Supreme Court’s ruling?
What’s the story?
- The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision in a case known as New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that struck down a New York state law requiring citizens seeking a concealed carry permit to demonstrate a special need for self-protection above that of the general public.
- The case concerned a pair of law-abiding residents of New York who had their applications denied because officials alleged that they had failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement.
- New York’s law required that a person applying for an unrestricted permit to carry a concealed firearm in public to demonstrate that “proper cause” existed for the issuance of a license, including for target shooting, hunting, or self-defense. The proper cause requirement could only be satisfied if the applicant can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”
- The Court’s decision in Bruen went 6-3 along ideological lines with conservatives in the majority. It held that New York’s proper cause requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
- Bruen expands upon and clarifies prior Supreme Court precedent in Heller, which held that both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, by holding that there is a constitutional right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
- The Court also emphasized its use of the text, history, and tradition test adopted in Heller and affirmed in McDonald, which held that states and cities are also bound by Heller when regulating guns, and that to justify firearm regulations the government must demonstrate that it’s consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
What did the justices say?
- Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion for the Court, which was released on his birthday. Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The majority opinion read in part:
“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution…
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. 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.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
- Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, as did Justice Brett Kavanaugh (who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts), and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
- Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. The dissenting opinion read in part:
“In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention (last updated May 4, 2022) (CDC, Fast Facts), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ firearms/fastfact.html. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. See Gun Violence Archive (last visited June 20, 2022), https://www.gunviolence archive.org. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. J. Goldstick, R. Cunningham, & P. Carter, Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States, 386 New England J. Med. 1955 (May 19, 2022) (Goldstick).
Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described 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. It invokes the Second Amendment to strike down a New York law regulating the public carriage of concealed handguns. In my view, that decision rests upon several serious mistakes.
First, the Court decides this case on the basis of the pleadings, without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary record. As a result, it may well rest its decision on a mistaken understanding of how New York’s law operates in practice. Second, the Court wrongly limits its analysis to focus nearly exclusively on history. It refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be. The Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents. Third, the Court itself demonstrates the practical problems with its history-only approach. In applying that approach to New York’s law, the Court fails to correctly identify and analyze the relevant historical facts. Only by ignoring an abundance of historical evidence supporting regulations restricting the public carriage of firearms can the Court conclude that New York’s law is not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” See ante, at 15.
In my view, when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms. The Second Circuit has done so and has held that New York’s law does not violate the Second Amendment. See Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 97–99, 101 (2012). I would affirm that holding. At a minimum, I would not strike down the law based only on the pleadings, as the Court does today—without first allowing for the development of an evidentiary record and without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence. I respectfully dissent.”
What does it mean?
- New Yorkers will likely still have to apply to obtain a concealed carry license, but assuming the state’s government abides by the ruling of the nation’s highest court, they won’t have to demonstrate a special need for self-defense beyond that of the general public.
- States and jurisdictions that have objective standards for issuing concealed carry permits will be unaffected by the ruling, although those like New York with “may issue” laws that give officials discretion to deny permits because the applicant hasn’t demonstrated “proper cause” will have to revisit their laws in compliance with Bruen.
- Aside from New York, jurisdictions with “may issue” laws with “proper cause” standards include California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
- New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), who is in the midst of a re-election campaign, recently signed new gun control policies into law and signaled that New York Democrats are “closely reviewing our options” and may convene a special session of the legislature.
RELATED READING
- Supreme Court to Hear Case on Second Amendment Right to Carry Concealed Handguns for Self-Defense (4/26/21)
- What Are Gun Rights? (3/9/20)
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: iStock.com / Rdlamkin)
The Latest
-
Your Share of the National Debt is ... $105,000The big picture: The U.S. federal deficit for fiscal year 2024 hit a staggering $1.8 trillion, according to the Congressional read more... Deficits & Debt -
Election News: Second Trump Assassination Attempt, and Poll UpdatesElection Day is 6 weeks away. Here's what's going on in the polls and the presidential candidates' campaigns. September 24 , read more... Congress Shenanigans -
More Women Face Pregnancy-Related Charges After Roe’s Fall, Report FindsWhat’s the story? A report released by Pregnancy Justice, a women's health advocacy group, found that women have been read more... Advocacy -
IT: 🗳️ A Guide to National Voter Registration DayWelcome to Tuesday, September 17th, voters... Today is National Voter Registration Day, a day dedicated to encouraging you to read more...
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
I refuse to 'Pledge allegiance to the Federslist Society and the wealthiest conservatives for which it stands'.
The Supreme Court originalists has just gutted efforts to end gun violence with the unprecedented re-interpretation of the Constitution that any decisions regarding self-defense rights must be viewed within the context of how the framer's would have viewed the issue. This re-interpretation of the framer's intent just eliminated concealed carry laws that have been in place for over a hundred years, largely because the framers could not have imagined the lethality and range of modern weapons.
The Federalist Society's appointed Justices have just killed or significantly neutered any gun control effort that will come out of the Senate - thus saving the Republican Senators from having to publicly take a stand by voting.
The current court’s review-interpretation runs counter to the prior accepted view that the rights of people to not be slaughtered by someone not following the rules justifies curtailment of everyone's right to conceal lethal weapons in certain venues.
it will be interesting to see if concealed wespons will be permitted for those attending Supreme Court sessions- or, if Suirene Ciurt Justices are entitled to more security protection from gun violence than the general populace.
Also, there seems to be no restriction on just what constitutes a weapon that can be conceal-carried for self defense. Are concealed sub-machine guns now permissible? Hand grenades? High intensity laser pistols? Automatic poison dart flingers? RPG's? Tactical nukes?
I do not know how to determine what the framer's would have thought about any of these weapons - so are all such concealable weapons now legal?
The question is not will gun violence increase but by how much. No wonder McConnell is suddenly supporting gun safety composed primarily of mental health & red flag laws.
and our hypocritical Supreme Court Justices just want US Marshall protection for themselves & their families!
Well at least the SCJ did what many Republicans fail to do. Protect our rights!
Unlike Mitch McConnell who thinks we're so stupid as to believe he has protected our 2A rights with this very broad and easily abused bill he voted to pass.
New court ruling. Guns Guns everywhere. In the church, in the school, in the hospitals, at the grave side, in the theaters, in the restaurants, in the courtroom, in the legislature, in the trains and on the planes. No more need for metal detectors. Thank you for all your efforts to bring this about. Next step I guess is to bring back dueling between politicians or have debate and voting on bills by a shoot out on the House and Senate floors.
The only reason I agree with what the Supreme Court ruled on is they way it was written. Other states actually have the same laws but written as not to segregate. NY wrote their law which selected people and took away rights. Other states have the same law, without designating individual. Not to worry NY will rewrite their law.
Self-protection is an inalienable right. The "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. This is not rocket science.
SCOTUS expanding 2nd Amendment Rights at a time when gun violence has never been higher. I'm sure that will help...right.
When are we reforming the courts???
Anyone???
Absolutely clear
if u pack 'positions' be it scotus or admin with people willing to do your bidding
you can bend any rule to your sway
scotus became defunct today 23 jun 2022
until the rank and file have been cleansed of political hacks this country will continue its downward spiral towards failure
shame on scotus
shame on congress
absolute shame on gop
I still don't understand how the need to protect oneself falls under the Constitutional category of "a well-regulated militia."
A win in defense of our Constitutional right to bear arms!!! I don't own a gun, but feel strongly that the right to protect oneself and family is a quintissential American right. The founding fathers knew all too well that an armed populace was the best defense against tyrrany. And in today's world, it is needed as a means of self defense when police are unable or unwilling to provide protection.
NY laws are archaic as are California laws. Time to come into the 21st century
Abortion is a medical procedure on a womans uterus that is inapprooriate for anyone to be permitted to make decisions about, other than the woman whose body the uterus belongs to, in consultation with her medical provider . To the extent that abortion may impact the life of another after that life has developed to the point of viability infependent of the mother, it may be appropriate to adopt policies to ensure that the rights of both lives are protected , including protection from pain .
Seems obious to me why nobody needs a concealed weapon
2nd amendment applies to all, and NOT to be decided by someone else who's life is in danger.
They are back, watch your wallet
:(
This is how the court needs to approach every issues. all the bias aside all the shootings aside the court followed the word of the constition and strike down a law that doesn't meet the wording of the constitutional right. If you really believe and go by the wording just forcing people to register there weapons is unconstitutional as well. People allow restrictions on this right because people see there are issues so we're willing to have restrictions for safety. But then of course the democratic controlled states always way over step there authority and take too much then this happens. As with history repeating itself the oversteps results on republicans to ease the restrictions more then the democratic overstep so it works against there agenda so let them keep repeating it. I like the people with the good ideas and don't restrict ppl rights whoever that is left right I'm that narrow minded I have to pick a side. Demipublican we mixed the republican with the democrat the offspring is that line. Hot ice we heat up the ice cubes it's the best of both worlds we leave all the shitty parts about the gop & dems we just use the good parts
Hipocracy at its lowest. SCOTUS gets tax funded security for themselves but loosen gun laws that will create the USA version of OK Corral for the rest of us.
Treason!
Interesting that the Supreme Court values guns over protecting the law abiding gun owners and non gun owners !
YET THEY REQUIRE AND WE TAXPAYERS FOOT THE BILLFOR THEIR EXTRA SECURITY!!!
I guess the shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, etc., etc., etc. aren't enough for SCOTUS. They're willing to allow everybody and anybody carry a gun and use it against anyone at anytime. All a person has to do now is say "I felt my life was threatened" and that's it their clear. How can any prosecutor prove otherwise? This group of justices is beholden to the Federalist Society for their positions. Three of them lied to Congress in order to get confirmed. So they are reversing laws on the books for 50+ years that Rs have been trying to overturn for decades. It's time for SCOTUS term limits. No more lifetime appointments and certainly not for young justices who could spend 30+ years on the bench.
it should be a woman's right to work with her doctor, not the government
So the Supreme court in all its hypocrisy has decided to restrict the ability of states to regulate guns while expanding the right of states to regulate abortion. Both these rulings will cause repercussions that will haunt us all.
Legal precedence means nothing now. The separation of church and state means nothing now. What is legal and not legal will depend on which party is in power when SCOTUS dies off. Nine SCOTUS will determine all the laws based on their religious beliefs, not past laws. They are not voted in and can stay as long as they like. Does not sound like a democracy to me.
If the Supress Court is so into States Rights as they have shown in Roe v Wade, then WTF is going on with the gun issue? Seems political to me!!
Reverses court legislation, you can buy pills over internet, Dems lie., as usual
How is this ruling "Pro-Life?"
Odd, isn't it, that the arbiters of open carry, no registration, licensing, no training in handling a weapon, be armed any and everywhere, don't allow guns at their meetings. Shoot down (intended) those common sense existing laws.
NRA convention-arms-uhuh😒. Supreme Court same. Why?
Pew! Pew! Pew!
It is obvious the Supreme Court is so tainted with dark money. None of their decisions from here on out will have any legitimacy. Where are all the states rights people,quiet of course, this is a brazen infringement on a states right by this crooked SCOTUS.
Our country should care more about children, and women than they do guns.
Yes, more protection from guns. People should need to show need for protection to be carrying guns in public.