SCOTUS Releases Bruen Decision
BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 9 months ago
Found here.
Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
Of course I haven’t had time to sus out all of the prose in this decision. It’s a long one and will take some time.
But Justice Thomas undoes the damage I have always claimed that Heller did to the God-given RKBA. Heller never explicitly spoke to carry outside the home.
I don’t expect this to end here. New York will doubtless impede, stall, interfere, hamper, and do everything possible to keep from recognizing these rights. So will Hawaii, Maryland, and Illinois.
We’ll return to this decision many times in the future, I’m sure.
UPDATE #1: Townhall covers.
Thomas – “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
UPDATE #2: PJM covers.
UPDATE #3: Alito – “In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. 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? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”
Editorial comment: Breyer has the thinking of an adolescent. Alito is trying to use reason to a man who cannot understand it.
On June 23, 2022 at 10:41 am, Fred said:
NY will simply ignore this. The problem in America today is that some folks are operating by one set of rules and the other are not. At the center of these rules is of course morality, but America has lost the baseline, which was holy Scripture.
On June 23, 2022 at 1:07 pm, Drake said:
I recently left NJ. They’ll ignore it too until they lose in court. Then they’ll change their laws in a way that will take another decade to wind through the courts.
On June 23, 2022 at 1:37 pm, Chris said:
The fact that politicians knowingly pass unconstitutional laws planning to fully enforce them until a day far in the future that they are overturned makes me wish (with no hope) of another law: I call it Petit Treason. It would simply note legislators who voted for the final passage of a law, and any executives who sign it, If the law is ever finally ruled unconstitutional, those people would be automatically ejected from office and barred from holding any future office. No need for fines, jail time, etc. Just get them out of the business of making laws.
On June 23, 2022 at 2:28 pm, scott s. said:
From out here in Hawaii, I’m sure the Ninth Circuit will try to find space to continue bans on carry. The state lege keeps trying to claw-back, this year attempting to restore “use or lose” by extending to 30 days the period to complete a transfer, and also physical inspection at time of transfer to transfers between unlicensed persons.
On June 23, 2022 at 4:18 pm, bob sykes said:
On the other hand the Ninth Circuit court recently struck down California’s ban on some gun sales to 18 to 20 yearolds.
On June 23, 2022 at 10:10 pm, X said:
I live in NY. It is not the NY that most people think of; I am 400 miles from NYC and only 200 miles from Cleveland. Where I live is basically the Eastern Midwest, not “New York.”
This decision is a good thing and it is a win, but trust me it is not quite as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. What people who are not from NY do not realize is that a NY handgun permit is not just a CCW permit; it is a discretionary permit to OWN and POSSESS a REGISTERED handgun that can be confiscated by the State at any time for any reason.
For instance, if you get ACCUSED of misdemeanor DUI, even if you have not been CONVICTED, the State can and will CONFISCATE your handguns — and after the SAFE Act, they can confiscate your long guns too.
None of this was addressed in the Bruen decision.
NYS handgun permit law requires that you demonstrate “just cause” (which is totally subjective) as to why you “need” a handgun. Licenses are issued by county judges who normally hear felony trials. Many judges, including in some very rural areas, NEVER accept “self-defense” as a “just cause” for owning and carrying a handgun. Many judges will ONLY issue a license for “hunting and target shooting,” period.
Bizarre as it may sound, violating these restrictions — i.e., carrying when you are not actually hunting or target shooting — is NOT illegal and you cannot be charged with a crime. But the judge CAN and WILL revoke your discretionary permit to POSSESS an handgun, even on your own private property, for violating these “administrative” restrictions. When your permit to POSSESS is revoked the State will CONFISCATE your handguns.
The Bruen decision says that the State cannot require an applicant to prove a “special need” justifying CCW for self-defense. In other words, Bruen says that if a judge issues a permit, it cannot have “hunting and target only” restrictions on it.
But the application and licensing process remains. In order to POSSESS a REGISTERED handgun on your own private property (with a maximum 10 rd capacity), you will still need a police background check, fingerprints, a mental health evaluation, HIPAA waiver, a safety class, between four and eight personal references, and to spend hundreds of dollars in fees and fill out a 35-40 page notarized application under penalty of perjury that is about as intrusive as a rectal exam, which asks questions like if you have bows and arrows and where they are stored.
Beyond that, the State will take steps to effectively nullify Bruen, namely: 1) they will use any and every subjective “mental health” criteria they can to deny people, and 2) they will make it it felony to carry on any private property without the express consent of the owner, meaning that if you get a carry permit in NYC literally the only place you will be able to carry is on the public sidewalk and you will not be able to enter any private restaurant, bar, deli, store, or office without getting a felony arrest which, upon conviction, will bar you from owning firearms for life.
What Real Americans in Real America need to understand is that these people are like a cult, gun control is like religion to them. Trying to get them to accept the Bruen decision is basically like going to the Grand Mosque in Mecca and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. They simply will not listen and will gladly kill you rather than convert.
On June 26, 2022 at 7:12 am, Ron Bass said:
Would violating someones 2nd Amendment rights be equal to violating that persons civil rights?