Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed ready to strike down a restrictive New York gun permitting law, but the justices also seemed worried about issuing a broad ruling that could threaten gun restrictions on subways, bars, stadiums and other gathering places… Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010 established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. The question the court is now confronting is about the right to carry a gun outside the home.” AP News
The right urges the Court to strike down the law, arguing that constitutional rights should not be contingent on bureaucratic discretion.
“[New York] Applicants must show ‘a special need’ for defense, beyond that of ‘the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’ In other words, it isn’t enough to hold a job that requires carrying wads of cash through high-crime neighborhoods. An impeccable public record doesn’t matter. Neither does extensive firearms training. This is an extraordinarily high bar to place on an enumerated constitutional right…
“A win for the gun club, the state claims, will ‘jeopardize’ gun rules in ‘courthouses, airports, subways, sports arenas, bars, gaming facilities, houses of worship, and schools.’ That seems unlikely. The Heller ruling itself was clear not to ‘cast doubt’ on ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.’…
“This case is about ‘who,’ not ‘where.’ One law-abiding citizen in New York is permitted to carry a gun and another is prohibited. Why? Because some government official decided the first fear was ‘particularized’ and the second was ‘generalized,’ even if sincere.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“When permit decisions rest solely with judges and bureaucrats, the few people who get carry permits in may-issue states often have special connections, or are relatively wealthy. These people are, on average, more likely to be white men. Those without connections, more often women and minorities, get the short end of the stick. In California, former Orange County sheriff Mike Carona faced criminal charges after giving people permits in exchange for things like a $15,000 Cartier watch for his wife. A local TV affiliate found that Santa Clara County sheriff Laurie Smith was 14 times more likely to give a concealed gun permit to campaign donors…
“The numbers are very different in ‘shall-issue’ states, which issue permits to anyone who is legally eligible. In those states, as of 2012, 29 percent of permit holders are women. Eleven percent are black, which is nearly proportional to the general population, per the latest census.”
John R. Lott, Jr., Newsweek
“New York is one of only six states (the others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey) that condition the right to bear arms on an official’s discretion, which is not required to exercise any other constitutional right…
“[New York] appeals to history and tradition, digging up the 1328 Statute of Northampton. But English courts interpreted that statute to prohibit persons from going armed ‘in affray of the peace,’ not if they were acting peaceably. America’s Founders would have scorned the idea that they needed ‘the king’s license’ to carry guns… Other than prohibitions in the South on concealed carry or on mere possession by black people, there were no pre-Civil War restrictions on the peaceable carrying of arms.”
Stephen Halbrook, Wall Street Journal
“Over the past two decades, the number of permit holders has grown exponentially while the violent crime rate has dropped. As recounted in an amicus brief filed by law enforcement groups and others in Bruen, the number of concealed-carry permit holders increased from 2.7 million in 1999 to 19.48 million in 2019. And that figure actually underestimates the increase, as 21 states now allow permitless concealed carry, up from 1 state (Vermont) in 1999. But during the same period, the violent crime rate dropped by more than a quarter…
“And if allowing private citizens to carry firearms in public is such a threat to public safety, why have so many states made their carry laws less restrictive? Since the 1980s, dozens of states have gone from ‘no-issue’ or ‘may-issue’ laws to ‘shall-issue,’ meaning applicants don’t need to show good cause to receive a license. During that time, not a single state has gone in the other direction.”
Mark W. Smith, Breitbart
The left argues that there is historical precedent for New York’s law, and hopes the Court will not issue an expansive ruling that calls into question other gun safety laws.
The left argues that there is historical precedent for New York’s law, and hopes the Court will not issue an expansive ruling that calls into question other gun safety laws.
“[The case is] based on a flawed foundation: the case from 2008, D.C. v. Heller. Before that case, most legal scholars believed that the Second Amendment only created a collective right. As the National Rifle Association famously omits from its literal, carved-in-stone version of the text, the amendment really says that ‘a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’…
“Unless those first 13 words are just decoration, the Second Amendment right seems to be connected to militias, which, before the establishment of police forces and national guards, helped to keep the peace — and to put down slave rebellions, which appears to have been the real motivation for the amendment. And indeed, as New York and the Department of Justice showed in oral arguments, there were numerous examples of states (and colonies) banning individuals’ concealed carry of weapons entirely.”
Jay Michaelson, New York Magazine
“After [Paul Clement, arguing against the law] insisted that New York could still ban guns in ‘sensitive places,’ Justice Elena Kagan… pressed for examples: What about the New York City subway? The NYU campus? Crowded stadiums? Packed protests?…
“After Clement refused to answer these questions directly, [Justice Amy Coney] Barrett jumped in with an assist. ‘Can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place? Because now we’ve seen people are on top of each other, we’ve had experience with violence, so we’re making a judgment, it’s a sensitive place.’ Clement agreed that this restriction ‘might be a perfectly reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.’ But it’s pretty cold comfort if New York can only ban guns in one of the most crowded places in the world on its single busiest night…
“There’s little question that Alito and his conservative colleagues will invalidate New York’s ‘good cause’ requirement and compel the state to hand out concealed carry licenses to any gun owner who wants one. At this point, the bigger issue—one Justice Neil Gorsuch raised repeatedly—is how the court will do it, and what ramifications its decision will have for other gun laws.”
Mark Joseph Stern, Slate
“Gun advocates are fond of talking about how their high esteem for guns is deep and meaningful, part of the culture of their families and the places they come from. They’ll tell you about the bolt-action hunting rifle their daddy’s daddy passed down, which now hangs in a place of honor in their own home and is so much more to them than just a tool… and they aren’t the least bit alarmed when someone in line ahead of them at the 7-Eleven leans over and they see a holster on their hip…
“But guess what: The rest of us have a gun culture too. It’s one defined by the absence of guns. Where I grew up, I never saw any guns. If any of my friends’ parents had them in their homes, I never knew it. Hunting was not one of our common forms of recreation. The only time I ever touched one was when I took riflery at summer camp. And if we saw someone with a gun in their waistband walking down the street, we’d call the cops… What the Supreme Court is poised to do is say to every American: You live in Oklahoma now. People are just going to be carrying guns around.”
Paul Waldman, Washington Post
"Gun rights advocates argue that looser regulations on concealed weapons would actually make those cities safer, since everyday people would be in a better position to defend themselves. But there’s a lot of evidence suggesting that’s not true. Multiple studies have suggested that a heavily armed populace doesn’t increase safety — in fact, one study found that relaxing permit requirements was associated with an increase in violent crime."
Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, FiveThirtyEight
