SCOTUS Rules on Concealed Carry

SCOTUS Rules On Concealed Carry

What Latest SCOTUS Ruling on Concealed Carry REALLY MEANS

( – Across the country, numerous states have enacted highly restrictive gun control laws. Still, crime is not decreasing and, in fact, has only gotten worse in recent years. In New York, the state government required a means test on gun ownership, which — based on recent crime statistics — criminals certainly don’t abide by.

On Thursday, June 23, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) again backed the Second Amendment. This time, it affirmed that all of the Constitution is equal and that one amendment is not less than equal because a political party or activists don’t approve of it. In the New York case, the high court struck down a significant law that could have major implications for firearm laws and regulations across the country.

New York Gun Law Is Unconstitutional

If you wanted to apply to carry a gun outside your home in New York, you needed to be prepared to justify why. New York law required permittees to demonstrate they had a special need to carry a gun for personal protection. The state called it a “proper cause,” and the barrier to overcoming it was significant.

Just wanting to protect oneself or property wasn’t good enough for law-abiding citizens. They were required to provide specific and repeated examples of how someone was threatening them before officials justified issuing a permit.

A 6-3 majority of the SCOTUS sided with the plaintiffs. The court concluded that no other constitutional rights require an individual to prove to government officials they need a special exemption. In effect, the high court said the state was determining — at its discretion — who could exercise a right and who couldn’t.

Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and is not subject to different rules than others guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Additionally, Thomas noted that the law didn’t define “proper cause,” making it highly subjective and its enforcement unrealistic. If one were to simplify the ruling, objective laws are good, and subjective ones are bad.

In a striking statement bound to have implications nationwide, Thomas added that New York couldn’t classify New York City as a “sensitive place” because it’s a large crowded city that a massive police department defends.

Does More Gun Control Prevent Gun Violence?

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Bryer argued that guns are taking the lives of too many people. He added that the majority ruling significantly burdened a state’s ability to defend its people from mass gun violence.

Justice Samuel Alito took issue with Breyer’s assertion. He asked if the liberal wing of the court really believed restrictive gun laws prevent or deter mass gun violence. He wondered: if a person knows it’s illegal to carry a handgun outside of their home, will that stop someone bent on carrying out a mass shooting? Pointing directly at the incident in Buffalo, New York, the justice asked if the highly restrictive gun law stopped the recent mass shooting, noting that it did not.

So, it appears the SCOTUS is siding with the Constitution. The high court is squeezing the Left on restrictive gun laws that turn one Constitutional amendment into a second-class one. Perhaps when the SCOTUS says it backs the Second Amendment, it means it.

Copyright 2022,