fbpx

2nd Amendment and Concealed Carry

โ€”

by

in

Question 01 /21
0 pt

Should convicted felons have their gun rights fully restored?

vote to see results
Loading ... Loading …

SCOTUS Ruling on New York’s Concealed Carry Law

The Supreme Court struck down New York’s century-old concealed carry law in a 6-3 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas declared the right to bear arms in public as fundamental as free speech or religious practice. The ruling rejected the previous two-step test for evaluating gun laws, instead emphasizing historical precedence from the Founding Era.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that states can still require licenses for carrying handguns, but “may-issue” laws giving authorities too much discretion are no longer allowed. “Shall-issue” regimes, where licenses are generally granted unless specific disqualifications are met, remain acceptable.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent focused on real-world implications, citing recent mass shootings and arguing that the court ignored empirical evidence about gun violence.

States with similar “may-issue” laws now face legal challenges to various gun regulations. Courts are struggling to apply the new historical test, resulting in inconsistent decisions. The ruling has also opened the door for convicted felons and others previously barred from owning guns to challenge their circumstances.

New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul and state attorney general Letitia James expressed outrage and vowed to find alternative ways to keep New Yorkers safe. Meanwhile, gun rights advocates argue that a well-armed public is a safer public.

Implications of the Bruen Decision

States with restrictive gun laws similar to New York’s are now required to dismantle their “may-issue” permitting frameworks and replace them with more permissive “shall-issue” systems. This shift has left lawmakers and legal experts scrambling to address the new landscape while ensuring public safety.

The new historical test prescribed by SCOTUS emphasizes that any restriction on the right to bear arms must have a historical precedent from the Founding Era. This requirement poses significant challenges for modern firearm regulations, as proponents must now justify contemporary laws using centuries-old documents.

In California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, legislative efforts have quickly pivoted to craft new laws that can withstand historical scrutiny. Gun rights advocates see this as a correction to government overreach.

The ruling has sparked numerous lawsuits nationwide, challenging regulations on:

  • Magazine limits
  • Specific types of firearms
  • Other previously upheld restrictions

Lower courts face the daunting task of reconciling contemporary issues of gun violence and technological advances with archaic standards.

The Bruen decision demands a recalibration of how gun laws are evaluated, emphasizing age-old traditions over present-day realities. This tilt toward originalism underscores a broader ideological shift that redefines the relationship between the state, the Constitution, and the individual right to bear arms.

Colonial-era documents alongside modern firearms, symbolizing the historical test for gun laws

Legal Challenges and Public Safety Concerns Post-Bruen

Lower courts are grappling with Bruen-inspired legal challenges, causing significant upheaval. One prominent case involves whether convicted felons should continue to be barred from firearm possession. Courts must decide if archaic rules disarming “untrustworthy” groups justify modern prohibitions against felons or drug users.

Challenges to bans on gun ownership for drug users highlight another battleground, as judges are split on whether these modern-day bans can stand without clear historical analogs.

The emphasis on historical context to adjudicate modern laws could exacerbate existing racial biases and social inequities. When courts ignore contemporary public safety statistics in favor of historical norms, they risk reinforcing racial injustices.

Domestic violence restraining orders and “sensitive places” laws are also under scrutiny, raising concerns about vulnerable groups and public safety in metropolitan areas.

Government entities must now dedicate substantial resources to defend existing laws or justify new ones using historical documentation, potentially diverting attention and funding from other critical public safety initiatives.

"The Bruen decision has ushered in a new era of legal uncertainty and public safety challenges, making it harder for the government to regulate firearms effectively."

As this judicial shift continues to unfold, expect a stark reevaluation of modern public safety practices through the lens of historical precedence.

A judge's gavel next to law books and a firearm, representing legal challenges to gun laws
  1. Ruben E. The Supreme Court’s Gun Decision: What It Means. Brennan Center for Justice. 2022.
  2. Ulrich M. The Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision on Firearm Licensing. N Engl J Med. 2022;
  3. Williams P. Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, expanding concealed carry rights. NBC News. 2022.
  4. Totenberg N. Supreme Court strikes down New York’s concealed carry law. NPR. 2022.
  5. Castillo A. What to know about California’s concealed carry law. The Sacramento Bee. 2024.
  6. Spies N. The Bruen Decision Reshaped Gun Laws. Here’s What You Need to Know. The Trace. 2024.