SCOTUS Rules Against New York's Strictest Gun Law
The Supreme Court is in the season of releasing rulings.
Already we have seen a major defense of religious liberty. Hopefully, we’ll soon see a massive step taken towards upholding the right to life. Thursday, however, SCOTUS revealed a court opinion regarding the Second Amendment and gun rights. A New York law required applicants for concealed handgun licenses (CHL) to provide some ‘special need’ for carrying a firearm outside the home. The issuers of the CHLs were not given a pattern for discretion. The only standard was the aforementioned ‘special need’ and that the applicant had to be able to present an undefined ‘proper cause’ for wanting a CHL. Living in a dangerous neighborhood or wanting to defend oneself against sexual assault were often not good enough reasons.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court found this law to place such a burden on exercising the Second Amendment that the law practically denied the right to bear arms. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, paid special attention to the individual words of the Second Amendment. The amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms… shall not be infringed.” Thomas points out that “keep” and “bear” refer to two differing aspects of gun rights. While the New York law did not severely restrict the “keeping” of arms (weapons could still be owned and kept inside one’s house), the law annihilated the “bearing” of arms. To bear arms is to carry a weapon on one’s person.
Thomas also notes, reiterating the ruling of previous court cases, that self-defense is the heart of the Second Amendment. While many, including the dissenting Justice Breyer, argue that the advances in technology have rendered firearms too dangerous, Thomas rightly says that the handgun is the self-defense weapon of our day. To deny the right to carry a sidearm is tantamount to deny adequate self-defense.
Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, counters much of the “too dangerous” logic behind Justice Breyer’s dissent and the many proponents of increased gun control. Alito writes, "Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?" Alito then points out that the New York law did not prevent a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York.
The question of gun-rights remains one of authority. Do statistics (which always require interpretation) have any bearing on constitutional provisions? Or, is lex rex? Alito repeats the same talking points that many gun-owners or gun-rights supporters use. While the tragedy of mass shootings is real and needs to be addressed, debasing the Second Amendment is not the answer. In fact, this is clear to even those who are the most ignorant of jurisprudence. Your everyday redneck uses the same argument for gun-rights as a justice on the highest court of the land. Common sense does sometimes prevail after all.
