USA: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most significant expansion of gun rights in a decade

In another blow to liberals, the Supreme Court overturned a law enacted more than a century ago that imposed restrictions on carrying concealed weapons outside the home.

The ruling was passed by a majority of 6 to 3. Opponents: "The ruling severely burdens countries' efforts to limit gun violence

News agencies

23/06/2022

Thursday, 23 June 2022, 19:35 Updated: 19:43

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

• Share on general

• Comments

  Comments

The United States Supreme Court today (Thursday) overturned a law enacted more than a century ago that imposed restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons outside the home - a ruling that is the most significant extension of the country's gun rights in a decade.

"Because New York State issues firearms licenses publicly only when the applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the state's licensing regime violates the Constitution," Judge Clarence Thomas wrote.

The decision was passed by a 6-to-3 majority

. -CNN.

"We are entering an era of new legislation that challenges all measures against weapons in light of the ruling today."

The shooter's weapon at an elementary school in Texas (Photo: Official Website, Instagram)

Twenty-five states allow people to carry concealed weapons in most public spaces without a permit, background checks or security training, according to the Giffords Violence Prevention Center.

Thomas wrote in the opinion that "only if the regulation on arms conforms to the tradition of this country, can a court conclude that the conduct of a particular person is not within the scope of the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

In the opposing opinion, Liberal Judge Stephen Brier noted the wave of gun violence, including in Buffalo and Ovalda in Texas, and said the ruling today "severely burdens state efforts" to curb gun violence.

"The main difference between the court's view and mine is that I believe the amendments allow states to take into account the serious problems posed by the arms violence I have just described," he wrote.

"I fear the court's interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves states without the ability to address them."

The shooter at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York (Photo: Official Website, Twitter)

Conservative Judge Samuel Alito wrote in an opposing opinion that "how does your objection relate to the fact that one of the mass-shooting campaigns happened in Buffalo? New York State law in this case did not stop the shooter."

Conservative judges also dismissed the concerns of supporters of the existing law about how the law restricts the carrying of weapons in certain places.

"It's true that people congregate in 'sensitive places,' and it's true that law enforcement is usually available in those places. But expanding the category of 'sensitive places' just to include the entire public space is simply too broad," Thomas wrote.

Good to know (promoted)

Exclusive entrance to an electronic music festival full of high energies

Submitted on behalf of XL Israel

Shooting at an elementary school in Ovalda, Texas (Photo: Reuters, Marco Blue)

In 2008 and 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in two important cases on the subject, but has since tried to evade the issue.

He agreed to accept the case after Conservative Judge Amy Connie Barrett was appointed to court by Donald Trump.

The current case, the New York State Ripple & Pistol v. Baron, focused on a New York law that oversees the issuance of licenses to carry concealed weapons in public for self-defense purposes.

The law requires a resident to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon and present a "proper reason" for the license.

Residents must prove that they have a great need for a license and that they face a "special or unique danger in their lives."

The law requires license applicants to see a "real need for self-defense" versus a "speculative need."

A panel of judges in the District Court of Appeals argued that the New York law does not violate the Second Amendment.

The Biden administration also supported New York State and told the court that the amendment may protect people's right to bear arms, but that right "

The plaintiffs in the case were Robert Nash, Brandon Coach and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

They will be represented by Paul Clement, a lawyer from the time of President George W. Bush.

Bush argued that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right not only to possess a weapon but also to carry it.

Clement argued that the existing law does not allow an ordinary person to obtain a license because the criterion of "proper cause" is so demanding and does not leave "extensive discretion" to the license issuer.

• news

• World news

• America

Tags

• United States

• Weapon

• Supreme Court of the United States