In the decision (6-3) released today, the Court found New York's requirement to show need to carry concealed unconstitutional. Does that in effect make all states Constitutional Carry?
I don't think so, but I haven't studied it. As far as I am aware, it removes a state's power to require citizens to show cause for why they want to carry a weapon. I think they can still require a carry permit but will have to be more balanced as far as whose permits are granted. By not studying it, I mean that I barely listened to the news.
No. It just kills "may issue" and recognizes carrying as a right. (As an aside, we are now at 25 states that have some form of Constitutional Carry.) Here is an analysis of the ruling from the gun right's group I belong to here in Virginia: **************************************************Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling which strikes down “May issue” licensing/permitting in New York, Maryland, DC, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Massachusetts as unconstitutional. “Shall issue” licensing/permitting, such as we have here in Virginia, is left for possible future challenges, as it is not based on any need to show just cause to carry a gun. It also leaves open for now, background checks, training requirements, fingerprinting, and mental-health records check, amongst other things to get a CHP. However, this part of the ruling doesn’t really affect us here [in Virginia], but it does prevent a future legislature from going back to a “May issue” paradigm. It also will affect all of us in the future as we visit Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, California, DC, and Massachusetts! Other major things in the ruling that does affect Virginia and all other states: 1. Sets the bar for how gun laws are determined to be constitutional or unconstitutional by the courts. This is a major win for gun owners. The ruling says that the Two-Step approach, which generally uses “intermediate scrutiny”, used by many circuit courts to determine the constitutionality of various gun-control laws is not allowed. A Two-Step approach was used by some courts to balance state interests with the interests of the People, if the courts found that a law is indeed covered by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment already has the balancing between Government’s interest vs the Peoples’ interest built in and the balance is resolved toward the People, not the Government. So, courts must only determine if a law is covered by the Second Amendment. If so, the law is unconstitutional if it infringes. Courts are allowed to look at historic precedent set on the Second Amendment in the 18th and 19th centuries to determine if a law being considered has precedent back then. If so, the law under consideration would be constitutional. However, such precedent needs to be relatively widespread in the various states at the time, and not some loner law that only one state, or a few cities, had. The courts also have to consider if such law was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional. Bottom line: it is going to be much harder for a gun law to be considered constitutional, as there were very few widespread gun-laws in the 18th and 19th centuries and those laws have to line up substantially, or be analogous, with the law being considered. 2. There must be some way that citizens are allowed to carry. So, either open carry (possibly with a shall issue permit) or concealed carry (possibly with a shall issue permit) must be allowed. 3. Only locations that were considered “sensitive” in the 18th and 19th centuries, or any modern places that are directly analogous, can be considered “sensitive” for restricting carry today. New York and other states can’t ban carry merely because large groups of people are gathered somewhere, and police are patrolling the area. Carry cannot be banned on streets, in subways, parks, etc. unless such bans were in place back in the 18th and 19th centuries or there was an analogous location with such a ban. This should help VCDL with its lawsuit against the City of Winchester on their park ban and carry ban at permitted events. I’m also thinking that not all government buildings will fall in the “sensitive” category, perhaps DMV, for example. 4. Guns in common use cannot be prohibited. So, handguns, semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s and AK-47s, and shotguns, for example, are all constitutionally protected. 5. Restrictions on firearm possession by certain persons, such as felons and the mentally ill, are permissible. Overall this landmark ruling is a huge win for gun owners and VCDL plans on making maximum use of this ruling to protect our right to keep and bear arms, now and into the future! **************************************************
I would think this decision covers every state, why wouldn't it? The thing that worries me is the collateral damage, i.e. good guy with gun kills bad guy with gun but in the process bystanders are killed and wounded. This is the scary image for me. I wish every gun owner was trained in safety and use of their weapon. I wouldn't trust that everybody knows what they are doing or where to aim and how to be steady. I saw some folks on the news being glad, and I had to wonder how far I would trust some of them to know how to correctly use it. That's my fear.
That is no doubt a concern, but in the rare event such might happen, I think mass shootings will be rare if the shooter can't achieve their goal of killing many. In every recent mass shooting if a citizen had pulled a gun and shot the killer, then the death count by the shooter would be way low. The thing is as explained above, this ruling doesn't change anything except take away states' and cities' power to impose their own rules in a discriminatory manner. Think of it this way. A shooter starts spraying bullets into a crowd and an old lady behind him pulls out a handgun and fires 3 rounds rapidly at him before he goes down and one round passes through his side and hits a fleeing person. Chances are that the fleeing person's wound will not be fatal. Think of how many lives would be saved by this quick response. Even if the fleeing person died from the old lady's shot, they would have anyway if the shooter had been allowed to continue along with 20 maybe 30 more. We cannot any longer depend on the police because there aren't enough of them and their hands are severely restricted and they have become targets for the "woke" mental illness that is taking over the country. If we focus on what could possibly go wrong, then we will continue to spiral into chaos. Think of how many kids lives would have been saved if just one teacher in Uvalde, Texas had been armed. The TRAINED and licensed police officer in charge was sure a failure. Parents were stopped from going in and defending their kids. This supreme court ruling just like the abortion one will have little effect at a national level. It is just holding the states accountable for unconstitutional actions. Finally, we have a supreme court that is more interested in the constitution than politics. How about the lawbreakers harassing one court justice? Why aren't they arrested? The law is clear on doing anything to intimidate a judge, witness, or juror. We need to restore law and order in the USA and it sure looks like it will be only done by armed citizens. When jails and prisons are emptied of violent criminals, citizens must have a way to defend themselves.
Well said, @Faye Fox. I would add that we don't restrict the use of automobiles based on "need", and that is not a Constitutional right. There was an incident recently at a rally where driver deliberately drove into a crowd to kill protestors. but the re was no call to limit the use of cars. In my mind, the same applies to guns but we are guaranteed the right to carry guns.
Let me continue your paragraph about the Good Girl with a gun. Good Guy with a gun is walking across the front of the supermarket when the shots start. He looks down the isle he just stepped on to and sees the Good Girl's second or third shot. He thinks.... Good Guy Nr. 2, who is running for the exit a few isles down hears the shot. When he gets to the end of the isle, he sees Good guy Nr. 1's shot at Good Girl, He does what he thinks is the right thing. In the mean time Good Guy Nr. 3 .... And the story continues. So yes, perhaps we should pass legislation requiring every able bodied adult to be armed.
That's a legitimate concern but civilians have always been held to a much higher standard than the police, and I don't think that will change. When an innocent person is killed during a police shooting, it's nearly always considered justified. Not so, when a civilian is involved. If more civilians were carrying, I think there will be fewer shooters, though. Whatever decisions are made, something will always go wrong.
This thing is, no one is putting forth the facts on the low crime rates in areas where these rights are not restricted. There are no gun battles because an armed citizenry (or the threat of any given citizen being armed) is a massive deterrent. The gun battles occur between bad guys, in regions where citizens are disarmed, guns are already illegal and criminals rule the street. Funny how everyone knows where I'm talking about, yet the problem never gets fixed...and the politicians go after the honest guys in the rest of the nation. Hmmmm.... Vermont has had "Constitutional Carry" (no permit required to open or conceal carry) for decades, and last I looked the entire state averages 10 homicides per year, with 2 of those being with a firearm. Regarding the subject of suicides...at one point Japan's suicide rate was [sadly] 5 times that of America's, and not a single one was committed with a firearm. The Japanese became adept at mixing household chemicals. There is so much more, but it's tough to fight the rhetoric lies. The vast majority of cops go their entire career without pulling their firearm in the line of duty, with the possible exception of a few regions like Chicago and New Orleans (although the rates in those places may still be very low.) Cops are not "well trained marksman" or even "reasonably competent shooters." There is no need for them to be...they mostly do traffic stuff and domestic disputes. They only fire their weapons once a year during mandatory requalification. Heck, I've had more range time and training in a month than many of them get during their entire careers, despite what that PSA commercial about "do you have time to practice" might infer. And when the police do use their weapons in the line of duty, they hit the target one out of every five shots (per FBI stats.) The other 4 bullets go "somewhere else." This is not a criticism (I think one shot out of 5 hitting the target while under fire is pretty remarkable), but these are the facts. Regarding responsibility: check out the rate of convictions for misdemeanors and felonies for off duty cops versus conceal carry permit holding citizens. (Hint: the conviction rate for cops is 6x higher.) I'm not bashing cops, because the actual numbers are still pretty low...but the numbers for armed citizens are even lower.
It was said that during the George Floyd period, that, while Alaska had legal demonstrations here, there were no damaging riots nor did anyone die. Almost everyone in Alaska owns multiple guns and many concealed--and some open--carry their weapons. When everyone is armed, there are no riots. Anchorage DOES have a high murder rate per capita, but virtually all of that is drug-related. The bush has a high suicide rate, but that goes back millennia. Suicides have increased in recent decades in rural areas, though, due to a number of factors, among which are government assistance programs and a feeling of hopelessness among the young.
I heard an attorney speak this morning and he compared the current fight over state's rights on firearms with the Civil Rights conflicts of the 1950s and 60s. In the Civil Rights era, some states tried to exempt themselves from the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding integration, notably Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama. Now states are trying the same thing with Gun Rights, notably California, New York, and New Jersey. It actually seems to line up pretty well. What do you think?
While I agree that the states, and individuals, should be able to make most decisions for themselves, it is wrong to federally mandate one right, while leaving another up to the states.
I think that they should have kept the law like they were meant to be kept. When The Constitution was written only 3 laws were federal if my bad memory serves me that is, kidnapping over state lines, murder and forgot the other one.