Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

[Elderberry]

CNN

What you need to know
•   The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home. 

•   This is the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade, and it comes as the country continues to grapple with mass shootings, including the recent massacre of 19 schoolchildren in Texas.

•   The court's decision was 6-3. Read the full ruling here.



Biden calls Supreme Court ruling on guns "a bad decision"

President Joe Biden responded Thursday to a Supreme Court ruling striking down a New York gun law placing restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home, calling the ruling, which marks the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade, telling reporters, “I think it's a bad decision.”

    “I was just talking to [New York Governor Kathy Hochul] about this, I am disappointed in the Supreme Court gun decision,” Biden told reporters in the Roosevelt Room Thursday, while pointing to what he called a “little bit of solace,” in that, based on his understanding of Thursday’s ruling, “the gun laws in 40 of the states are still in place based on the decision.”

“Not good enough, but I think it's a bad decision, I think it's not reasoned accurately, but I'm disappointed.

More:https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/new-york-gun-law-supreme-court-decision/index.html

[Elderberry]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 20–843. Argued November 3, 2021—Decided June 23, 2022

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that“proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ).An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can“demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable fromthat of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257. Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abidingNew York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carrya handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses,allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second andFourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense.The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and the Court ofAppeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the Second Circuit’s prior decision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, which had sustained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the requirement was “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.” Id., at 96.

-----

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protectthe right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Much more on pdf.

[Elderberry]

Supreme Court ruling puts target on California gun laws

Cal Matters  by Ben Christopher

https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its most significant gun law rulings in more than a decade, tossing out New York state’s tight restrictions on who can carry a concealed gun in public.

Gun rights activists are celebrating the 6-3 decision, while advocates for stricter gun laws decry it. Both agree that California’s similar law may be next to be challenged.

The ruling likely marks the most dramatic expansion of gun rights in the United States since 2008, when the Supreme Court clarified for the first time that the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear” firearms applies to individual citizens, not just state militia members. But that ruling only affirmed the right for “self-defense within the home,” leaving states with wide discretion over whether and how to restrict guns elsewhere.

This ruling brings that constitutional right outside the home.

“Confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court’s majority.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called the ruling “shameful” and a “dark day for America.”

“This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches,” the governor said on Twitter.

Attorney General Rob Bonta added that he would be working with the governor’s office and legislators to respond to the ruling. “More to come,” Bonta said in a tweet.

Most states either issue concealed carry licenses upon request or do not require licenses at all. But in eight states, applicants are required to show a compelling need before being granted permission to tote around a concealed firearm. Until today’s ruling, New York was one of those states. California is another.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote, offering a description of New York’s concealed carry law, but also California’s.

More at link.

[Elderberry]

Biden, Leftists Hate That SCOTUS Upheld the 2nd and 14th Amendment in NY Conceal Carry Case

Legal Insurrection by Mary Chastain

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/biden-leftists-hate-that-scotus-upheld-the-2nd-and-14th-amendment-in-ny-conceal-carry-case/

We must dissolve SCOTUS, you guys.

Maybe I find so much pleasure seeing the left go insane because I used to be one.

First, we had New York Gov. Kathy Hochul losing her mind over SCOTUS ruling 6-3 that the state’s concealed carry law is unconstitutional. You had to have “probable cause” to conceal carry your handgun outside of your house.

Hochul is not the only one. We have President Joe Biden crying over it and throwing out the usual hogwash the left loves to spew when they don’t get their way.

I normally ignore some of these people but I cannot today because they’re displaying their fascist attitudes.

Remember, Justice Clarence Thomas said it violated the 2nd AND 14th Amendments. Not just the 2md Amendment:

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Now let’s look at the reactions. Keith Olbermann, ladies and gentlemen! He has no reading comprehension skills and wants to do away with SCOTUS because he didn’t get his way. He calls Justice Amy Coney-Barrett a paralegal, too. What a sad man.

https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1539983585406484480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1539983585406484480%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2F2022%2F06%2Fbiden-leftists-hate-that-scotus-upheld-the-2nd-and-14th-amendment-in-ny-conceal-carry-case%2F

Keith Olbermann
@KeithOlbermann
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.

The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.

Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?

[libertybele]

Joe, exactly how is this ruling contradicting the Constitution???  Joe you ARE a flippin' idiot.

..."President Biden urged states on Thursday to impose gun control measures after the Supreme Court issued a decision that will make it harder for state and local governments to restrict who can carry guns in public.

In a statement shortly after the ruling, which struck down a New York law limiting guns in public, Mr. Biden said it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.”...........

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/23/us/gun-control-senate-supreme-court