Supreme Court Breaks New York Gun Law, Sets Major New Precedent –

United States short Supreme On a Fallen Thursday A New York State Weapons The law of control, which forms a key precedent for expanding access Second amendment And it puts at immediate legal risk the gun restrictions that exist in other states.

In case New York State Association of Rifles and Pistol v. Bruen There was a law in 1913 in New York that required people to obtain a license if they wanted to remove their guns from their homes. To obtain one of these licenses, the firearm owner must show that they really need the firearm for defense.

6 to 3 Remarks, against the majority of judges appointed by Republicans and against judges appointed by DemocratsThe court found that the New York license requirement violated the Second Amendment guarantee “the right to own and carry a firearm.”

“The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require people to show special needs to government employees,” Judge Clarence Thomas wrote in his leading statement. “The Second Amendment right to hold a weapon for public defense is no different.”

come back 2008The court said the second amendment protects the right to own a firearm, while also imposing certain restrictions on the use of firearms. In this new decision, the court in fact said that the Second Amendment also protects the right to bring this weapon to the public, which means it will be more difficult to impose restrictions in court.

“Nothing in the text of the Second Amendment introduces a home / public distinction regarding the right to own and carry a firearm,” Thomas wrote.

At the same time, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Judge Brett Cavanaugh said the decision only applies to states like New York, where officials can choose whether to issue a driver’s license or not, or where to show of people who want permissions their needs.

In other words, it is good that the state is willing to apply for permits to carry arms in public, until such permits are obtained almost automatically.

But the difference may not be synonymous as it seems.

First, states with similar systems to New York include California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Together they make up nearly a quarter of the United States population.

Additionally, Thomas wrote that lower courts should be more vigilant in upholding Second Amendment rights, using stricter standards associated with governments in the past. This standard could set the stage for challenging other weapons limits in the future, scientists said Thursday.

“The new trial Thomas announced is likely to complicate compliance with gun regulations for state and local governments.” Cardozo Professor of Law AND “Strict Inspection– says HatePost co-host Kate Shaw.

Among the regulations under Thomas ’new standard that may be difficult to implement are key components of the bipartisan armaments bill that are now being considered in Congress.

The bill provides new funding for “red flag laws” that allow courts to seize weapons from people who pose an immediate threat. It also prohibits the ownership of firearms by domestic abusers, closing the so-called “fiance defect”, which only allows those rights to be restored after five years.

“The court’s decision to amend the second amendment questions key components of the Senate Arms Bill.” Adam Winkler UCLA Law Professor and Expert on Gun Rights, Posted on Twitter. According to Thomas, only gun rules are allowed that are consistent with historical gun regulations. However, red flag laws are a modern invention. As well as bans on domestic abusers ”.

Of course, what history exactly says about gun laws is also controversial. The main controversy in this case is the urgency of the pre-existing restrictions on guns, some of which began hundreds of years in England and the importance of common law there.

Thomas, in his view, denied the importance of these earlier regulations, saying they did not justify New York law or other attempts to restrict the availability of firearms.

Thursday’s decision marked the latest success in the Conservatives ’10-year campaign to Build Intellectual Arguments that provides a broader reading of the Second Amendment and, subsequently, fills federal courts with sympathetic judges. such arguments.

Until recently in American history, the dominant view among judges and lawyers was that the Second Amendment was primarily concerned with the right of states to maintain the militia. “In 1990, when the Conservatives argued that it actually included the personal right to own and own a gun, former Chief Justice Warren Burger called it an argument.” Fraud of American citizens. “

But the conservative majority in the Supreme Court supported this argument in its landmark 2008 decision, as Judge Samuel Alito pointed out in an accompanying opinion on Thursday’s decision.

“The main point we emphasized is that‘ the people ’and not just members of the‘ militia ’have the right to use guns to protect themselves,” Alito wrote.

Thursday’s decision was met with a strange reaction from elected officials, who praised it by prominent Republicans and condemned by prominent Democrats. Among them were lawmakers whose voters were immediately struck: in other words, they were from New York.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today upholds the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to possess and hold a firearm and correctly declared New York’s shameful attempt to destroy New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights in violation in the constitution, ”Ell said. Official Edition He also slammed the “far left” and predicted the decision would allow “law-abiding gun owners … to protect themselves and their families.”

“This is proof that this is a Supreme Court activist,” Senator Kirsten Gilbrand (DN.Y.) told HuffPost. Gilbrand pursued this decision by linking it to other elements of the conservative agenda. Combine this decision and reasoning with Rose’s draft decision and you will see that President Trump’s intent from the outset was to destroy not only the precedent, but also the rights of the state and the laws of the states to be effective. enforces public safety. on the front line.

The decision was made on Thursday, nearly a month after the Texas Wolves Elementary School massacre and amid growing violent crime nationwide, even though overall armed crime cases are fewer than in the 1980s and 1990s.

Proponents of gun control say the threat of gun violence means governments should be more aggressive in restricting ownership and possession, while opponents of gun control say the threat means more people should be armed.

Judge Stephen Breyer opened his argument by saying that more than 45,000 Americans were shot dead last year. Alito, with his permission, responded directly, citing that New York law did not prohibit large -scale shootings in Buffalo last month.

The real impact of licensing systems and other gun laws is still the subject of much debate, as is the Second Amendment itself.

An in -depth review of the literature 2020 Corporation Randy Find evidence of permits and related measures that should be “limited” or “incomprehensible” depending on the type of violence. But in general, more aggressive firearm states have lower levels of gun violence.

Overall, the United States ranks internationally when it comes to gun violence, with rates higher than any other developed country. And Americans have more weapons than their counterparts in other countries.

Igor Bobich was involved in the relationship.