US Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights, Strikes Down New York Law Limiting Guns in Public

The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public for self defense by opining that the century-old law requiring that applicants demonstrate "proper cause" and "good moral character" violates the Second Amendment. 

The 6-3 ruling with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices in dissent, found that the law enacted in 1913, violated a person's right to "keep and bear arms" under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. The ruling also marks the widest expansion of gun rights since 2010, when the Court applied nationwide a 2008 ruling establishing an individual right of armed self-defense within the home.

The ruling follows the mass shootings last month where 19 children and two teachers were killed on May 24 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and 10 people were slain on May 14 at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.

The decision is also expected to spur a wave of lawsuits seeking to loosen existing state and federal restrictions on carrying guns in five states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. 

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion by ruling that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and its licensing regime is unconstitutional.

"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", Justice Thomas underscored. He further averred, "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."

The opinion, authored by Justice Thomas however permits that there may be certain "sensitive places" where firearms can be excluded, such as schools and churches, but it provides no specification as to where the line should be drawn, except that a blanket restriction such as the New York law is unconstitutional.

Pertinently, Justice Thomas began his opinion with a reference to Dred Scott v. Sanford, the infamous 1857 case that decided that free blacks were not citizens of the United States. Thomas cited then Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney as a precedent for the assertion that the US Constitution guaranteed the right to anyone to "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

A concurring opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stipulated that they would uphold the right of states to require licensing, background checks, fingerprinting, safety training, and other measures that limit gun ownership. New York and other states could adopt licensing laws with similar requirements, it was suggested.

"Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements," Justice Kavanaugh wrote.

A 52-page dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer began bluntly. "In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms," he wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He further averred that since the start of this year there have been 277 reported mass shootings – an average of more than one per day. 

Opining that states working to pass more stringent firearms laws will be "severely" burdened by the court's decision, Justice Breyer observed, 

"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 Ka- chalsky 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". 

Justice Breyer further opined that many aspects of the history of firearms and their regulation are ambiguous, contradictory or disputed and accordingly argued that elected lawmakers were better suited to weigh society's needs today than Courts. 

"How can we expect laws and cases that are over a century old to dictate the legality of regulations targeting 'ghost guns' constructed with the aid of a three-dimensional printer? Or modern laws requiring all gun shops to offer smart guns, which can only be fired by authorized users? Or laws imposing additional criminal penalties for the use of bullets capable of piercing body armor?" the dissent averred.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Alito took the dissenters to task for citing the nation's gun violence in support of lawmakers' discretion to enact regulations such as the permitting law.

"The dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense," Justice Alito wrote. 

President Joe Biden said in a statement he is "deeply disappointed by the decision," and again urged states to enact changes to their laws to curb gun violence. "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," he said.

Case Title: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment