June 23, 2022

"In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law."

 SCOTUSblog reports.

The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities.

ADDED: The majority opinion is written by Justice Thomas, and he is joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. From the Thomas opinion: 

In the years since [Heller and McDonald], the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. 

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” 

At that point, there's a footnote that criticizes the dissenting opinion (which is by Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan): 

Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed by individuals with firearms. See post, at 1–9 (opinion of BREYER, J.). The dissent invokes all of these statistics presumably to justify granting States greater leeway in restricting firearm ownership and use. But, as Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783 (2010) (plurality opinion).

Applying this historical test, Thomas concludes that "there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."

From the concurring opinion by Justice Alito:

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.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

104 comments:

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Note:
For the last ~10 years, Roberts has kept the Court from taking cases like this one, by threatening to vote against whichever side voted to take the case

Now that his ability to decide the case is gone, he voted with the majority, in a ruling that equally could have come about years ago, but 5-4

So, I stand by my claim that Dobbs will be 6 - 3 nuking Roe / Casey, or else 2 -4 - 3 upholding the law in Dobbs and not nuking Casey

Because when he can no longer block the right ruling, he will go along with it

The wretched moral coward for holding up those rulings in the first pace

Mr Wibble said...

Hallelujah!

Greg The Class Traitor said...

SCOTUS finally holds that the 2nd Amendment is just like any other Amendment, and the point of the Constitution saying "gov't can't do this" is that "gov't can't do this", NOT "gov't can't do this unless they come up with a policy reason"

RideSpaceMountain said...

Coasties are anti-constitution. Weather after sports. Sports next after these commercials.

News at 11.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

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

Third, we examined the “discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse” after the Civil War, “as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly freed slaves.” Id., at 614.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Good.

Law abiding citizens win.

Now - get the FBI to pay attention to the nut jobs and stop manufacturing Gov. Democrat Whitmer fake kidnapping BS.

Mr. D said...

Be curious if this has anything effect on the current red flag law mania.

Humperdink said...

John Cornyn hardest hit. Hopefully someone will ask Cornyn if his latest foray into gun control (read: Red flag laws) will result in a similar slap down.

PTL for Trump's SCOTUS choices.

wild chicken said...

Do gangbangers and school shooters typically get carry licenses?

I mean, who knew?

Ice Nine said...

Somewhere, Bernie Goetz is smiling.

Beasts of England said...

Maybe this will open the eyes of the dolts in Congress presently scheming to infringe on the 2nd.

Lem said...

Even the chief joined the gun nuts?

Wow.

Dave Begley said...

Below is the first paragraph of the progs dissent. Nothing to do with the law. All about results.

"In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. See
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts:
Firearm Violence Prevention (last updated May 4, 2022)
(CDC, Fast Facts), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
firearms/fastfact.html. Since the start of this year (2022),
there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average
of more than one per day. See Gun Violence Archive (last
visited June 20, 2022)...."

Left Bank of the Charles said...

“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That’s quite a broad statement. Does this mark a shift from originalism to traditionalism?

rehajm said...

Massachusetts is one of those shithead states like New York that prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms through the justification question. It will be interesting to see if they implement a new strategy or simply cling to the old, now unconstitutional strategy. Our law from our cold, dead hands, government says...

...now if the legal types can get to work on the Massachusetts 'approved' firearms list...

Humperdink said...

Now let's watch the New York Dems force the citizenry to crawl over broken glass to obtain their concealed carry permit. That will be after they slap a safety tax on ammunition.

God of the Sea People said...

This decision should have rightly come soon after Heller.

Just for fun, Thomas should have established strict scrutiny as the the standard upon which gun regulations are to be judged. Heller and NYSRPA establish the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right, and Thomas reportedly states that the 2nd Amendment isn't a "second-class right." Why should gun regulations be subject to some lower standard?

(I haven't read the opinion yet, possible he actually did this.)

Butkus51 said...

Criminals be like, damn, now we dont know who is carrying.

Witness said...

I hope this makes things better and not worse.

AZ Bob said...

Read Alito’s concurring opinion:

https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1539984804258758656

Earnest Prole said...

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: Captain Obvious says this means exactly what it says it means.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Well they ignored Heller but maybe this time the gun grabbers will recognize their loss. This is a good 2nd Amendment decision and highlights the repeated lies Biden tells about what could and couldn’t be owned by individuals when the 2A was written.

rehajm said...

Beasts of England said...
Maybe this will open the eyes of the dolts in Congress presently scheming to infringe on the 2nd.


I once recall back in the 80s Bob Dole saying something like his obligation to the American people was to 'keep Washington moving' and he was willing to make great concessions with the opposition party in service to that obligation. I now believe this is a recurring theme amongst Republicans in office. Either that or Republican politicians really do have contempt for their own voters, as been alleged.

...or perhaps embrace the power of AND...

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That’s quite a broad statement. Does this mark a shift from originalism to traditionalism?


No.

The 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A strict textualist approach would be "you're infringing on the right, strike down the law."

Instead, they're being overly generous to such laws, and saying "you can claim that 'shall not be infringed' doesn't apply to your law only if you can claim that the people who passed that Amendment didn't think your regulation would violate it"

Which is pretty much the definition of originalism

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

This decision should have rightly come soon after Heller.

Yes. Yes it should have.

tommyesq said...

Massachusetts does not actually require a particularized showing of a special need for self defense. Instead, Massachusetts gives local police chiefs very broad discretion on whether to issue a license to carry. Some towns basically prohibit such licenses altogether, some require a special need for self defense such as actual violence or threats of violence against the applicant, and some (albeit not many) actually look to the Constitution and issue licenses so long as there is no criminal record or history of violence in the applicant. Not exactly sure how any of this is actually Constitutional, but it does push the decision-making to the local level.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Third, we examined the “discussion of the Second Amend- ment in Congress and in public discourse” after the Civil War, “as people debated whether and how to secure consti- tutional rights for newly freed slaves.” Id., at 614. Fourth, we considered how post-Civil War commentators under- stood the right. See id., at 616–619.

Finally, SCOTUS willing to look squarely at the racism behind many "gun control" laws

n.n said...

Minority report on notice. A host of civil rights subject to selective scrutiny is unconstitutional.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its use- fulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

Not only did Heller decline to engage in means-end scrutiny generally, but it also specifically ruled out the intermediate-scrutiny test that respondents and the United States now urge us to adopt.


But then it refused to take any of the cases where Appeals courts applied it anyway. Because Roberts is a moral coward

Although its meaning is fixed according to the un- derstandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Found- ers specifically anticipated. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405 (2012) (holding that installa- tion of a tracking device was “a physical intrusion [that] would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted”).
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th cen- tury.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in exist- ence at the time of the founding.”


A reply to the "it only protects guns that existed in the 1700s" morons

Freder Frederson said...

So does this mean next time some group storms the capitol carrying firearms will be perfectly legal?

Joe Smith said...

'Somewhere, Bernie Goetz is smiling.'

My very first thought...

n.n said...

Unlike the unconstitutional burden of a minority report in several Democrat districts, the denial of life for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes is a natural right exercised in darkness, discouraged in civilized societies. Demos-cracy is aborted at The Twilight Fringe. Roe's regrets.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

The dissent does not dispute that any applicant for an unrestricted concealed-carry license in New York can satisfy the proper-cause standard only if he has “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” And in light of the text of the Second Amendment, along with the Nation’s history of firearm regulation, we conclude below that a State may not prevent law-abiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they have not demonstrated a special need for self-defense

Now comes getting SCOTUS forcing the Appeals Courts to actually follow this ruling.

Enigma said...

Regarding the long delay after Heller, I'd surmise the Court would have let the status quo ride for another 10 years if not for NY's sheer nonsense gun transportation law of 2019:

https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/01/supreme-court-to-consider-new-york-city-ban-on-transportation-of-personal-firearms/

NY backed down and repealed the law before the Court could rule, so the Court took this case to discourage NY from similar nonsense.

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Buckwheathikes said...

Does Justice Breyer even understand how our country works? In his dissent, he strangely writes the following:

“Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence… by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

No Stephen ... the court isn't burdening the states' efforts. The Constitution is burdening the States' efforts. Like it's supposed to. That is by design. Our Constitution PREVENTS the States from doing exactly what they're trying to do and have done for 100 years. It is the Supreme Court which for the last 100 years has burdened the people, by preventing them from the free exercise of their God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights to self defense.

The States, whenever they wish it, can convene a Constitutional Convention and change the Constitution if they see fit. If they dare. Now that we'll all be concealed-carrying. At your little Convention.

Static Ping said...

Good.

The essential problem with "may issue" laws is they are abused. "May issue" permits tend not be issued due to actual need, but who you know and how much corruption the issuing authority tolerates. If you want to get a carry permit in a "may issue" state, the fact that you need it to protect yourself is rarely considered. However, politicians, celebrities, and crime bosses get them on demand.

Krumhorn said...

Justice Alito could easily have posed an additional question asking whether or not it's likely that the mass shooting casualties cited by the dissent would be reduced by the prospect of return fire. I'm pretty sure that the Colorado theater shooter or the Paris nightclub attackers would have been very substantially distracted from their killing if a single person in the place been able to balance the engagement.

- Krumhorn

Static Ping said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

In California, the "Need" requirement was satisfied by a significant donation to the Sheriff. There were a couple of scandals about this but I am sure it is just the same.

Michael K said...


Blogger Freder Frederson said...

So does this mean next time some group storms the capitol carrying firearms will be perfectly legal?


Field Marshall Freder should know that the only people carrying firearms on Jan 6, 2021 were Capitol cops and they killed a couple of demonstrators. None of the demonstrators had weapons. Some of the FBI tools outside may have had them. Most of the violence was commited by them.

Browndog said...

Nothing good about this ruling at all.

Our natural rights are not up for debate, but here we are, year after year, having a few men/women deciding whether or not you can have them. When they say you can, you celebrate.

I swear some people still act like Heller was the very first time you were "allowed" to be armed.

Humperdink said...

That took long. NY Gov. Hochul at 10:46 this morning:

"In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options – including calling a special session of the legislature.

Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence.

Kevin said...

In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.

Now do cars.

Then tell me why the DMV doesn't require you to show cause to get a driver's license.

Lem said...

Maybe I should explain something...

Like some African Americans deciding to own the n-word, I've decided to own the lefts most ferocious pejoratives, like gun nut. I'm not a gun owner, and probably never will be. But I support the constitutional right to self-defense.

BTW. Should we expect the charge that the Supremes voted this way out of deference, or in revenge for the would be attack on one of their own?

Expect that Vox hot take any minute.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder Frederson: "So does this mean next time some group storms the capitol carrying firearms will be perfectly legal?"

Since that has only happened twice before in 1814 and 1983 and neither were considered "legal" (though one was war time and the other time involved leftist terrorists) I am guessing "no".

rehajm said...

Massachusetts does not actually require a particularized showing of a special need for self defense.

…but as you correctly state nearly all discretion falls to the local police chief. In the town of Newton, the police regularly made a public statement that there was no necessity for private citizens to have a gun because Newton has a police force. Contrast with neighboring towns Waltham or Wellesley where the police help you fill out the applications and walk you through the process. At one time the Waltham police station had a flag backdrop that made for a fabu backdrop for your permit photo…

City of Boston for decades has ignored the state firearms permit application and utilized their own application. You had to make an appointment with the firearms officer then show up in person to request one. If you had not already greased the skids your odds of leaving with an application were just about zero. They also require a range test where you display proficiency with janky old revolver with some ammo in the bottom of a bucket they hand you. I’m told it is a little easier today to get a permit but it will always be restricted to ‘target’ or ‘hunting’ first go round, which means no concealed carry. Maybe at your renewal, if you’re lucky…

Humperdink said...

I suppose it's a good the lefties are preoccupied with fire-bombing pro-life centers. Otherwise they might be storming gun stores. Well, maybe not.

Wa St Blogger said...

So does this mean next time some group storms the capitol carrying firearms will be perfectly legal?

Carrying firearms outside the capitol: Legal
Storming the Capitol: Illegal with or without firearms.
Being invited into the Capitol: Legal
Not being able to bring your gun into the Capitol: Not illegal under this ruling.

There is a problem with your "next time" It implies there was a first time. There wasn't, at least not in recent history.


Althouse blog needs better lefties who can make coherent defenses of their positions. Of course that implies that lefty positions are defensible in the first place....

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tina Trent said...

We can conceal carry in Georgia. And there's virtually no violence on the off hours (the times of chaos) on public transportation. However, most of the stations are also wide and deep. You don't need to crowd near the tracks. And more than once I've seen real men of all races get between some violent fool and the female/elderly/feeble person he or she or they were abusing.

Lots of the abusers and nuts are big men dressed like women. Way out of proportion with their population. Just saying.

It may take NY some time to get its masculinity back, but this is a good start. Now start fighting back against the nuts on trains. And hold them down. And call the police. And show up in court. All these things are as important as carrying a gun. Will be interesting to watch how long it takes for civilized life to emerge again.

lonejustice said...

I have not been a big fan of Trump over the years.

But as a lawyer, the #1 reason that I voted for him, twice, was his promise to reshape the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump followed through with his promise, and we are now reaping the just rewards.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

The Texas Supreme Court upheld that restriction in English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1871). The Court reasoned that the Second Amendment, and the State’s constitutional analogue, protected only those arms “as are useful and proper to an armed militia,” including holster pistols, but not other kinds of handguns.

Me: Which is to say, at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, it was generally understand that the 2nd Amendment protected the possession of "military weapons", because they were "military weapons".

Beyond that constitutional holding, the English court further opined that the law was not “contrary to public policy,” given that it “ma[de] all necessary exceptions” allowing deadly weapons to “be carried as means of self-defense,” and therefore “fully cover[ed] all wants of society,”

Me: So, the purpose of the 2nd was to insure people could own and carry military weapons, and use them for self defense while in public. And this from a case that New York had tried to claim defended their side

Finally, we have this from Alito's concurrence:
[O]ver the period 1991–2019 the inventory of firearms more than doubled; the number of concealed carry permits increased by at least sevenfold,” but “murder rates fell by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 per 100,000 in 2019” and “[v]iolent crimes plummeted by over half ”

Lem said...

If a conservative said this about a Supremes decision... they'd put him in chains.

Alleged Keith Olbermann Tweet: "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?"

Howard said...

Good. The procedure for getting a concealed carry permit should be the same everywhere.

lgv said...

It ignores the reality that to get a concealed carry permit in NYC requires political connections. The elites can get the permit based on favors or who they know, whereas the average citizen is basically told no.

Jamie said...

Now that we'll all be concealed-carrying. At your little Convention.

Well. That was... intemperate.

Sure, the States can convene a constitutional convention any time they can muster the support for one. And the law-abiding citizens who own and carry guns are not equivalent to the abortion terrorists who, knowing that they cannot muster enough support for their position, keep on trying to intimidate through violence and the threat of violence those whose minds they've failed to change.

stlcdr said...

It seems that the so-called justices on the dissent side put forward no legal argument, just that guns-are-bad.

John henry said...

Drago said...

Since that has only happened twice before in 1814 and 1983 and neither were considered "legal" (though one was war time and the other time involved leftist terrorists) I am guessing "no".

Hey!

What are we, chopped liver?

You forgot the 1954 attack by Puerto Rican nationalists. They fired 30 rounds from those horrible, horrible, "Semi-Automatic" pistols from the ladies gallery of congress. They wounded 5 congresscritters.

NOT charged with sedition or insurrection or treason. Even though this was explicitly a politically motivated crime. Convicted of attempted murder plus conspiracy.

John LGBTQ Henry

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
effinayright said...

Greg The Class Traitor said...
Note:
For the last ~10 years, Roberts has kept the Court from taking cases like this one, by threatening to vote against whichever side voted to take the case
****************
You seem t keep up with 2nd amendment law and the Supremes, so...

Can you tell us how you know that assertion to be a fact?

John henry said...

My understanding is that prior to 1934 Firearms Act there were no federal restrictions on the right to keep and bear any kind of arms and no restrictions or conditions on sale. As a private citizen I had the right to own any conveivable weapon from a 22 derringer to a 16" cannon.

Am I misinformed on this?

John LGBTQ Henry

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

remember---
the Democrat party's personal Stasi - the FBI - will show up with guns to arrest Roger Stone in his silk pajamas. Or anyone who worked for Trump.

But he Democrat's personal Stasi, the FBI, will not show up to stop a crazed nutjob from killing young kids in a public school.

cubanbob said...

If I understand this ruling correctly it means constitutional carry and thus all states have to allow that. I always found it bazare the guns laws requiring a permission to carry when one has the right to self defense. Self defense without the means to do so is pointless and arguments that the police are there to protect you is a lie when the courts have ruled the police are not required to protect you. As noted above, a constitutional right does not need a policy justification and why the judges include them in their opinion is beyond their scope.

Cato said...

The AP story calls it a major expansion of gun rights.

Such a lie.

The right of the people to defend and protect themselves, their home, their families has always existed.

The AP thinks removing an illegal restriction on that right is somehow an expansion.

I would like the AP to be shut down by government, NY, and then when that is overturned by the supreme court see of the AP calls that a major expansion of free speech.

Jupiter said...

Howard said...
"Good. The procedure for getting a concealed carry permit should be the same everywhere."

And it should apply everywhere.

Jupiter said...

"Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed by individuals with firearms."

Note that such a painstaking recital would be an entirely appropriate form of argument, if the three dissenters were members of a legislative body.

Maynard said...

I prefer concealed carry because open carry makes people nervous and warns the criminals to find an easier target.

Shoeless Joe said...

Fantastic. Now to get the court to mandate that a concealed carry license recognized by one State must be recognized by all States. If that's how it works for gay marriage licenses then that's how it should work for CCW.

readering said...

Breyer of course answers Alito. These things can take a while to finalize. Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk.

rehajm said...

tommyesq said...
Massachusetts does not actually require a particularized showing of a special need for self defense

…but it never prevented the local jurisdictions from using the requirement. Boston has regularly publicly declared it is only a bit more likely to issue your permit if: you are a lawyer, you carry cash to the bank after hours as a job requirement (but only if you hand the police your bank statements) OR you demonstrate a need for self defense…

Humperdink said...

readering said: "Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk."

A classic lefty response. Well articulated and thought out. (You forgot racist! That may have sealed the deal for some.)

Donatello Nobody said...

The comment of tommyesq at 11:00 is correct. I have a MA LTC (“Class A Large Capacity License to Carry Firearms”) that was granted without restrictions. The application form has a space for the applicant to enter the reason for obtaining the license; the reason I gave was a variation of the standard “for all lawful purposes” boilerplate. The only approval I required was that of the local chief of police. I guess I’m lucky to live in a semi-rural town with a low crime rate — I have friends in other towns (e.g., Brookline) who were only granted a permit with restrictions. Again, not sure how this squares with the Constitution.

Original Mike said...

Blogger readering said..."Breyer of course answers Alito. These things can take a while to finalize. Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk."

Did he specifically answer this:
"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? "
because I'd like to hear his reponse.

Shoeless Joe said...

"In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention (last updated May 4, 2022) (CDC, Fast Facts), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ firearms/fastfact.html. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. See Gun Violence Archive (last visited June 20, 2022)...."

Now deduct 65% of those gun deaths as suicides, and 99.99% of the remainder as shootings not committed by lawful concealed carry holders. Somewhere a left-wing freak is desperately trying to find a way to make these these facts some form of racism.

StephenFearby said...

NYT:

'The Supreme Court has ruled that New York’s law governing the carrying of handguns is unconstitutional, but the law is not yet off the books.

The case will now be sent back to a lower court — the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — which is expected to send it back to Federal District Court in New York, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in constitutional law and gun policy.

That court is likely to give officials in New York a grace period, instead of striking the law down immediately, Mr. Winkler said.

“We have seen this happen in the past where the courts have given lawmakers some time so they can adopt a law,” he said. In this case, he added the alternative would be to “have everyone carry guns on the streets of New York.”

New York officials rushed to explain that complicated procedure to the public.

New York City’s police commissioner, Keechant Sewell, cautioned New Yorkers that nothing had changed yet and warned, “If you carry a gun illegally in New York City you will be arrested.”'

And if you're a criminal you'll soon be back on the street doing your thing because the woke Manhattan DA (Alvin Bragg) actively dislikes putting career criminals in jail before their trials (because of the so-called newly-enacted NY State bail reform laws).

But he's very good at posturing:

NEWS • PRESS RELEASES
Statement from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Bruen Decision
JUNE 23, 2022

“This decision severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country. While the Court has now made it more difficult to limit the number of guns in our communities, I am committed to doing everything in my power to fight for the safety everyone in this city deserves, and we have been preparing for this decision for weeks. New York still has some of the toughest gun laws in the country on the books, and we will continue to use these statutes to hold accountable those who commit gun violence.

At this very moment, my office is analyzing this ruling and crafting gun safety legislation that will take the strongest steps possible to mitigate the damage done today. Furthermore, we have already built detailed processes and put them in place to manage any litigation related to our ongoing cases. The Supreme Court may have made our work harder, but we will only redouble our efforts to develop new solutions to end the epidemic of gun violence and ensure lasting public safety.”

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Enigma said...
Regarding the long delay after Heller, I'd surmise the Court would have let the status quo ride for another 10 years if not for NY's sheer nonsense gun transportation law of 2019:

Nope

What's been happening is that Roberts basically threatened everyone else on SCOTUS that if they approved a case, he'd vote with the other side

Then we got ACB, and Roberts lost his veto

Greg The Class Traitor said...

readering said...
Breyer of course answers Alito. These things can take a while to finalize. Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk.


And what are Breyer's effective answers to Alito? Do share, copy and paste is easy

BUMBLE BEE said...

Blogger Humperdink said...
I suppose it's a good the lefties are preoccupied with fire-bombing pro-life centers. Otherwise they might be storming gun stores. Well, maybe not.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
During the Rodney King Riots I followed several threads wherein authors stated Crips and Bloods were having gunfights over the "rights" to loot the gun stores. Cop's stand down order meant lotsa ordinance made it into the thug world.

Marty said...

Reading said, "Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk."

You'll miss Breyer when he's gone.

Danno said...

Lem shared this tweet- Alleged Keith Olbermann Tweet: "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?"

If the Dems start down this path, I can see it working for many conservative issues in the future. Red states could be sanctuaries for everything the libtards despise. Think fossil fuels and such.

I remember back when I saw slogan saying, You fucking yankees can go freeze in the dark. It just might come true.

Yancey Ward said...

Given the press release by the DoJ, they won't enforce this civil right. I predict New York state will ignore the ruling and force each and every person wanting concealed carry to sue in federal court, and then, of course, over half the district judges will also ignore the SCOTUS ruling. The Rubicon has been crossed.

Václav Patrik Šulik said...

I'm sickened by the reaction of people who should know better. I'm not talking about movie stars or Keith Olberman. I mean people like Neal Katyal, Preet Bharara - and Kirkland Ellis has just fired two of their top litigators (Paul Clement and Erin Murphy). I'm sure they'll still take on the Guantanamo terrorists.
The DOJ and Biden are coming very close to nullification. The NY Governor and the Mass AG say they are going to ignore the court - I guess they think Kim Davis was right in ignoring Obergefell?

readering said...

Amazing. The victorious NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,
INC., was represented by Kirkland & Ellis, the largest firm in the US, and specifically by Paul Clement, the most prominent Supreme Court advocate. He and a colleague just announced they are leaving to star their own firm because K&E insisted on withdrawing from all pending second amendment litigation.

Kirkland had been a prominent feeder to the Trump administration. An alum Jeff Clark featured in today's January 6 Committee session. He took the fifth amendment during his deposition and his house was just searched pursuant to a fourth amendment warrant. He did not return to K&E after the inauguration.

Clement went through something similar before. A decade ago King & Spalding insisted he not represent House Republicans opposed to persons exercising their fourteenth amendment right to marriage licenses regardless of sex, so he left with others to form a new firm.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
Given the press release by the DoJ, they won't enforce this civil right. I predict New York state will ignore the ruling and force each and every person wanting concealed carry to sue in federal court, and then, of course, over half the district judges will also ignore the SCOTUS ruling

I think the Left is going to get to discover just how quick the rocket docket can be.

Even Roberts isn't going to put up with NY ignoring the ruling.

So 2nd Circuit will get a reasonable amount of time to implement this decision, and if they don't, or NY declines to make their law comply, then SCOTUS will accept an appeal, strike down any and all NY gun regulations, and make NY a "Constitutional Carry" State until such time as SCOTUS has approved the new NY law.

I'm pretty sure SCOTUS is going to be Fuck Around and Find Out on this one.

Michael K said...


Blogger Marty said...

Reading said, "Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk."

You'll miss Breyer when he's gone.


Breyer brought up Buffalo and the NY Times lied about it. It was not Alito who raised the topic. Who is the"jerk" again?

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“So does this mean next time some group storms the capitol carrying firearms will be perfectly legal?”

No, but it will continue to be legal for the Capitol Police to execute the unarmed.

readering said...

Alito acted like Breyer gave no reason for what he wrote. But Breyer did, addressing Alito. That's what makes Alito the jerk.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The left:
Defund the police

Also the left:
Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to own guns or protect themselves.

Yancey Ward said...

Greg, the court depends on the DoJ to enforce its rulings in matters like this. The DoJ very clearly intends not to. Sure, the appeal may get really, really fast tracked and disposed of, but, again, I expect the state to ignore the ruling and any subsequent ones, too.

Yancey Ward said...

Readering, anyone bringing up Uvalde in their dissent or decision is being a jackass since almost nothing in the Uvalde case had anything to do with concealed carry since Texas has concealed carry, and it wasn't concealed carry that the shooter used to buy the gun in the first place, and if Texas hadn't been a concealed carry state, it would not have mattered one whit since the shooter had no intention of obeying any laws. At least Alito's response was on target in that he pointed out how stupid Breyer was being by at least citing an instance where the state had restrictions on concealed weapons- New York.

rehajm said...

the reason I gave was a variation of the standard “for all lawful purposes” boilerplate

..the all lawful purposes bit never worked in Boston. It will be interesting if that’s still the case after today…

I’m always surprised how quickly people are to defend the MA FID/LTC system. At the academy in Epping there was always a lawyer or parole officer defending Mass in the classroom. They were the same people on the range who couldn’t complete half the handgun drills because their required MA approved handguns have limited capacity magazines.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

effinayright said...
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Note:
For the last ~10 years, Roberts has kept the Court from taking cases like this one, by threatening to vote against whichever side voted to take the case
****************
You seem t keep up with 2nd amendment law and the Supremes, so...

Can you tell us how you know that assertion to be a fact?


Because
1: A couple years ago, while RBG was still on the Court, there was a previous 2nd Circuit ruling on NY gun laws that was essentially identical to the one tossed out today. SCOTUS didn't take it
2: When SCOTUS took the NYC "you can't take your gun to any gun range outside the city" case, and NYC responded by repealing the law before SCOTUS could hear the case, Roberts got the case "DIGed" (Denied, Improperly Granted) on the grounds that it was moot since NYC had dropped the law. During oral arguments, he was the only one taking that position.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all wrote that SCOTUS needed to take another gun rights case because lower courts weren't following Heller
But none were taken until RBG was gone

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
Greg, the court depends on the DoJ to enforce its rulings in matters like this.
Yancy, what enforcement is necessary from the DoF if SCOTUS strikes down a law?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

readering: Breyer of course answers Alito. These things can take a while to finalize. Especially when one of the drafters is a jerk.
Me: And what are Breyer's effective answers to Alito? Do share, copy and paste is easy
readering: Alito acted like Breyer gave no reason for what he wrote. But Breyer did, addressing Alito. That's what makes Alito the jerk.


Apparently what Breyer wrote is so "powerful" that Rendering can't share any of it with us

Achilles said...

readering said...

Alito acted like Breyer gave no reason for what he wrote. But Breyer did, addressing Alito. That's what makes Alito the jerk.

What a bunch of dishonest garbage. Leftists are just pathetic.

The court rightfully held up that Citizens of the United States have a Natural Right to defend themselves.

They struck down a law that did not prevent the shooting in New York.

Breyer, the shithead fascist and the other shithead fascists that want to strip our Natural Rights to defend ourselves, brought up a shooting that the law in question did not stop.

Alito pointed out that law did not prevent the shooting. It in fact prevented law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

Anyone who brings up Uvalde as support for gun control is also a dishonest piece of shit if they do not acknowledge it was illegal for anyone to carry a gun in that school.

Leftists are just terrible people.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

So, here's what Breyer had to say about Alito:

I am not simply saying that “guns are bad.” See ante, at 8 (ALITO, J., concurring). Some Americans use guns for legit- imate purposes, such as sport (e.g., hunting or target shoot- ing), certain types of employment (e.g., as a private security guard), or self-defense. Cf. ante, at 4–6 (ALITO, J., concurring). Balancing these lawful uses against the dangers of firearms is primarily the responsibility of elected bodies, such as legislatures.

JUSTICE ALITO asks why I have begun my opinion by re- viewing some of the dangers and challenges posed by gun violence and what relevance that has to today’s case. Ante, at 2–4 (concurring opinion). All of the above considerations illustrate that the question of firearm regulation presents a complex problem—one that should be solved by legislatures rather than courts


What this pathetic asswhipe ignores is that it WAS "solved by legislatures". The State Legislatures solved it by passing the 2nd Amendment, saying "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Isn't it amazing how abortion has NO need for "Balancing lawful uses against dangers", and is in no way "a complex problem" requiring State Legislature input?

How that's apparently not true for ANYTHING where there's a majority on SCOTUS for imposing Breyer's way?

How the ONLY "complex problems" are ones where Breyer can't get 5 to vote with him?

He really is pathetic

readering said...

The law overturned today dated back over a century. When I was in law school the Second Amendment was not even taught in Con Law because the controlling interpretation was viewed as settled. By Republicans. Chief Justice Burger was famously dismissive of the individual right argument. The pendulum has swung. But get over yourselves.

mikee said...

Fortunately I live in Texas. I find myself saying that quite often these days.

mikee said...

And here is the place I have to put in an oft-repeated statement regarding criminal violence, and "gun violence" in particular, as misused by Breyer, et al., in their dissent.

Gun homicide rates and cases are a very poor indicator of criminal abuse of firearms. A much better metric is total crimes where a gun is possessed by the criminal.

The reasons are twofold and really simple.

First, death from gunshot depends upon multiple factors ranging from bullet placement to ambulance response time to ER trauma experience. If I ever have to be shot in the chest, let it be outside the ER entrance at a Level I trauma center. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-oct-07-na-trauma7-story.html

Second, any crimes - ALL crimes - committed using a firearm are potentially a homicide. That the criminal did not shoot the victim doesn't remove the deadly threat used by the criminal. Thus, total gun crime is the only metric worth using to compare before and after gun law changes, or different places, or different time periods for "gun violence" rates.

Thank you, we now return you to Supreme Court decorum, lack thereof, in dissent and concurrences.

Yancey Ward said...

Yancy, what enforcement is necessary from the DoF if SCOTUS strikes down a law?

Civil rights violations by the state that still enforces the struck down statutes. Normally, the DoJ would issue no press release like today's in such an event of a constitutional right being defended- it was always understood that when the court struck down a law that was it- finito- and if the state didn't follow through, then those officials could be charged with civil rights violations. Today's press release definitely made it sound like that the DoJ would do nothing to uphold this ruling, and would continute to help New York enforce the struck down law.

Donatello Nobody said...

Thanks, rehajm. Just to be clear, I wasn’t defending the MA system. Indeed, I believe “may issue” is unconstitutional.

rehajm said...

Donatello Nobody said...
Thanks, rehajm. Just to be clear, I wasn’t defending the MA system. Indeed, I believe “may issue” is unconstitutional


…as I took it…and appreciated your comment…

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
Today's press release definitely made it sound like that the DoJ would do nothing to uphold this ruling, and would continute to help New York enforce the struck down law.

IMO, they both would be well advised not to follow such a path. And they will realize it and not do so

6-3 majority. 5 of whom have repeatedly used the rocket docket to squelch the Left

I have no difficulty seeing at least 5 members accepting an appeal, and striking down every single NY gun law, stating that NYs dilatory tactics mean it's a "Constitutional Carry" State until such time as SCOTUS has approved its gun laws

Shrug. We'll see