Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry Permits – IOTW Report

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry Permits

Just the News: The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law that puts restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home.  

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling, with liberal-leaning Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer dissented. 

“The New York “proper cause” requirement violates the Constitution because it allows only public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense,” Thomas said in the opinion. 

The New York law required concealed carry permit applicants to show proper cause for the permit. Applicants were forced to show a particular reason why they had to defend themselves, rather than just general self defense. 

The suit came from two men who applied for concealed carry permits, but were permitted to carry only for the purposes of hunting and when going to and from work.  read more

15 Comments on Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry Permits

  1. Read what that idiot New York Governor Kathy Hochul said. She believes it is her ‘right’ to deny others of their rights. What a filthy tyrant she is.

    7
  2. NY mayor Adams has already stated that the old rules still apply and that his city will not be abiding by the SCOTUS ruling.

    That’s how Democrats are. They only follow the laws they want to. Additionally, they make up laws as they see fit. It’s how Democrats are.

    They have partners in this and those partners call themselves Republicans.

    5
  3. Justice Thomas is a national treasure. I can’t think of a living public figure for whom I have more respect, admiration, and gratitude (and damned few dead ones).

    Thomas’s opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen announced today is truly a gem. Particularly gratifying is the explicit decision that for 2nd Amendment and similar constitutionally enumerated rights, the courts are NOT to apply even strict scrutiny; scrutiny doesn’t apply, only original text and historical precedent. Hooray! Today’s decision will have a HUGE effect on existing state and federal law and it will take a long time, dang it, for it all to shake out.

    4
  4. Not to be forgotten was NY state tried to stop this from proceeding to court. The state knew it would lose. Too, this decision would be a huge loss to the gun grabbers everywhere in the country and territories.

    4
  5. Clarence Jackass Thomas, you need 24/7/365, hope you got it loser.
    Sponsored by the … no animals were harmed in this …

    3
  6. got some trolls in this thread … lmao
    & they’re giving each other ‘thumbs up’

    btw, gotta wonder if the blatant non-protection offered by the local police farce to the judges, where they live (MD, which has exactly the same ‘conceal-carry’ laws as the Fascist People’s Republic of NY), had any persuasive bearing on some of the justices’ decisions?

    1
  7. some great pull-quotes from Thomas’ opinion … as Uncle Al stated, Thomas is a treasure

    Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates 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.

    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. Pp. 15–17.

    … there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department

    Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,”

    … as Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.”

    … analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”— “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” that does not depend on service in the militia.

    “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” … The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.”

    … the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
    “[w]hen the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.”

    This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights

    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.

    1
  8. nypd unions will file a grievance against law-abiding citizens. de polees monopoly on ventilating grobiden-thugs bez threatened, fewer polees needed. the entire legal- grifter system could be downsized, the horror!

Comments are closed.