How the Supreme Court Redefined the Right to Carry

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc, New York’s largest and nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization, petitioned Kevin Bruen, the Superintendent of New York State Police. New York has a law stating that those who want to carry their handguns in their car or on their person, must show the circumstances, or proper cause as to why they would want to carry them. A problem had appeared when two individuals who applied for this permit had gotten denied as they did not show proper causes for concealed carry. The question that arises with this case is if this law violates the second amendment. 

The district court dismissed their claims, but the Court of Appeals affirmed them, and the case was argued on November 3, 2021, and decided June 23, 2022. The constitutional right that this case deals with is the second amendment right to own guns as well as the fourteenth amendment which implemented the bill of rights to the states. This issue has been debated many times over the last decade, and the issue targets how constitutional it is for someone to be carrying a firearm in public. Many different courts have interpreted this right differently, and many have come up with different specificities as to what circumstances require concealed carry. Some think that this law infringes on the second amendment right to bear arms because the people should have the right to defend themselves no matter where it is, even if it is in public.The other side argues that the violence caused by guns, particularly in schools, calls for more regulation and restriction of the right which is what the law is trying to accomplish. 

The implications of this decision on US society is that this case shows what types of regulations are needed to be placed on guns; something that still gets regularly discussed today. After this case was decided, special needs requirements in other states such as California were struck down; this case added a new legal framework and precedent for gun cases in the future. The majority opinion of the court, authored by Clarence Thomas, brought up other Supreme Court cases which set this precedent for the ruling, mainly District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago. 

The court rules that the fourteenth amendment in these cases gives the right to a citizen to possess a handgun in the home, and therefore it also protects the citizens right to concealed carry outside of the home. The majority opinion ruled with these precedents in mind, but the dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, ruled that this law was trying to slow down the rampant growth of gun violence in the state. Breyer also claimed that though the majority opinion had a strict view on the past, it did not consider that the constitution also does not place limitations on the government having regulation of firearms. 

---

Works Cited 

Scalia, A. District of Columbia v. Heller, Justia US Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

Alito, S. McDonald v. Chicago, Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521