"Here's what the Washington Post said about the case (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/23/supreme-court-gun-control/ ):
The Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans generally have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, striking down a New York law requiring a special need for such a permit and putting at risk similar laws in five other states.
The court’s decision clears the way for legal challenges to similar restrictions in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii and Massachusetts.
Thursday’s vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority and the court’s three liberals in dissent.
“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Thomas wrote, saying New York’s requirement of a specific need to carry a weapon violates that right.
“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.’ ” Thomas wrote, referring to a previous Supreme Court ruling. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
He was joined by the court’s conservatives: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed to the nearly 300 mass shootings since January and to data showing that gun violence has surpassed car crashes as the leading cause of death among children and teens. The majority’s decision, he said, will make it more difficult for state lawmakers to take steps to limit the dangers of gun violence.
The Second Amendment allows states to “take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence,” wrote Breyer, who was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He added: “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.”
The decision has taken on new significance in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Tex., that have renewed calls for stricter gun regulations.
In a statement, President Biden said he is “deeply disappointed” with the court’s ruling that “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”
“In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans,” he said.
Enacted more than a century ago, New York’s law requires those who want to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense to show a specific need for doing so.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement Thursday that the court’s ruling “severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country” and will make it “more difficult to limit the number of guns in our communities.” His office has been preparing for the decision and is crafting gun safety legislation that will “take the strongest steps possible to mitigate the damage done today,” he said.
“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.”
Senate votes to advance bipartisan gun deal, breaking 30-year logjam
The Senate this week advanced a bill after 20 senators — 10 from each party — signed on to a framework agreement that coupled modest new gun restrictions with about $15 billion in new federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades.
If passed, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would be the most significant new gun restrictions since the 1990s. But it falls far short of the broader gun-control measures that President Biden and other Democrats have called for, such as a new assault weapons ban or restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck a law that severely restricted gun ownership, but answered only part of what it means to “keep and bear arms.”
But it is not until now that the court has taken up the question of what it means to “bear” arms.
The two people challenging the law — Robert Nash and Brandon Koch — have licenses to carry handguns for hunting and target practice. But New York authorities denied their requests for “unrestricted” licenses for self-defense because officials said they could not show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”
The National Rifle Association, which helped challenge the New York law, called the decision a “watershed win.”
“New Yorkers will soon be able to defend themselves outside of their homes without first having to prove that they have a sufficient ‘need’ to exercise their fundamental rights,” Jason Ouimet, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action said in a statement. The ruling, he said, “opens the door to rightly change the law” in a half dozen other states “that still don’t recognize the right to carry a firearm for personal protection.”
During the two-year period of 2018 and 2019, at least 65 percent of applicants in New York were approved for an “unrestricted” license, according to a state analysis of records submitted to the court
Since the 2008 decision, lower courts have generally sided with states that restrict the right when determining how the Second Amendment applies beyond people’s homes. The justices have turned down numerous requests from gun rights advocates to review those decisions.
Scalia’s opinion made clear that the Second Amendment is not unlimited and identified several lawful restrictions, including bans in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings. But recently four conservative members of the court — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — have expressed frustration about their colleagues’ apparent reluctance to reenter the gun debate.
During November’s argument, the six conservative justices expressed varying levels of support for the two people challenging New York’s law with backing of a National Rifle Association affiliate.
Twenty-five states do not require a permit to carry a firearm in public, while several others require permits but do not ask applicants to justify their need for a weapon.
The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen.
Well, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy can now start their own law firm. Its time people wake up and stand for the constitution.Bruen attorneys leave law firm after being told to ditch 2A clients
Yesterday should have been a triumphant day for Paul Clement and Erin Murphy. The pair won a landmark victory at the Supreme Court when justices ruled 6-3 in favor of their clients in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking down the state’s unconstitutional “may issue” carry laws. But yesterday the pair also learned that the other partners at Kirkland and Ellis, the law firm where both work, apparently weren’t too happy about the win and told the two attorneys they had a choice to make: ditch their Second Amendment-related clients or leave the firm.
Paul Clement and Erin Murphy explain why they've parted ways with Kirkland and Ellis after the remarkable and appalling demand.bearingarms.com