This decision comes amid record gun violence.
Even as the U.S. continues to struggle with mass shootings, the Supreme Court expanded gun rights for the first time in more than 10 years, via a sweeping new ruling.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court ruled that a century-old New York law that required residents to have “proper cause,” and “good moral character” in order to carry concealed weapons outside their homes was unconstitutional.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Clarance Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “It is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
Meanwhile, the court’s three liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor — pointed to the rise of gun violence in their dissent, emphasizing that 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms in 2020 alone.
Here’s how this ruling impacts similar laws in other states, how critics are responding to its implications, and what lawmakers are doing in response to the rise in mass shootings.
Which New York law was struck down?
The high court dismantled a New York state law known as the Sullivan Act, which has been on the books since 1913. The regulation required that New Yorkers justify their need to carry a handgun in public. But Thomas countered by saying that Americans have a constitutional right to carry a weapon in public for self-defense purposes.
The case appeared to highlight a rift between the conservative and liberal side of the court over the highly charged issue. In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito criticized his liberal colleagues for mentioning the recent mass shootings like the one at an elementary school in Texas in their dissent, and Thomas said that New York law did nothing to stop the horrific mass shooting at a Buffalo grocery store that left 10 people dead.
What does it mean for other states?
In striking down New York’s law, the court also struck down similar laws in other states, including New Jersey, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, some of these states that require permits have lower rates of firearm-related deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
At the same time, Thursday’s ruling doesn’t mean that states can’t continue to restrict gun licenses. The conservative justices who voted in favor of the decision said local governments can still make applicants “undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”
How are critics responding?
The decision has already drawn swift condemnation from gun control groups, Democrats, and even President Joe Biden himself.
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” Biden said in a statement.
What’s next?
This decision comes as Senate passed new gun control legislation known as “The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Among other reforms, the bill would boost background checks for Americans under the age of 21, and close the “boyfriend loophole” that prevents people convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun. Now it looks like it’s set to also pass the House to become the most significant update to the nation’s gun laws in three decades.
“This is not a cure-all for all the ways gun violence affects our nation,” Schumer said. “But it is a long-overdue step in the right direction.”
