The momentous sentence overturns a New York law that set strict limits
It ratifies the extremist drift of the High Court dominated by a conservative majority
“The right to bear firearms it does not stop at the front door”. The phrase was written on Twitter this Thursday by an exultant National Rifle Association, but from now on it is also jurisprudence in theUnited States. In a transcendental and extremely controversial decision, the solid conservative majority of the Supreme Court has enshrined the right to carry weapons outside the home. The idea of a “Wild West” in the 21st century, with armed citizens in countless public places, and with weapons that have nothing to do with those of centuries ago, is no longer seen as a dystopia but as a possibility.
The National Rifle Association welcomes the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruens. The Court affirmed that the right to bear arms does not stop at a person's front door. This is the most significant Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade: https://t.co/0k1KHUO80M
— American Rifleman (@NRA_Rifleman) June 23, 2022
What the six conservative justices of the Supreme Court have done, in the face of the dissent of three progressive justices, is to declare a New York state law unconstitutional which imposed strict controls to grant the licenses that allowcarrying weapons in public. The almost hundred-year-old rule required proving that there was an “appropriate cause” to obtain that permit and other requirements such as proving “good moral character.” She had been challenged in court, with the support of the state chapter of the NRA, by two New Yorkers who had restricted licenses for hunting and target practice, and in one case for carrying his gun. in commuting, but those who were denied a total permission.
The majority of the Supreme Court agrees with them. And with his decision he makes the largest and most relevant expansion of a strong originalist and omnipotent interpretation of the Second Amendment since < strong>2008also a conservative majority in the High Court recognized The right to have guns for self-defense in the home.
Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the majority opinion, has written that states can continue to ban guns in certain places > that are considered “sensitive” among which he has cited schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, electoral centers and courts, but has also warned against the interpretation “too broad”; of what It is one of those places. In the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, he has replied “What? What about subways, nightlife venues, cinemas, stadiums?” There is no answer.
Violence and ultraconservative drift of the Supreme Court
The concrete impact of the sentence is still pending. about to see. For now, it returns the New York case to a lower court and intense legal battles are expectedboth in the state and in the six others that have similarly restrictive laws, Its greater reach, in any case, is undeniable, and it comes at a height of the firearms debate.< /p>
Many states try to legislate in the face of the increase in violence with these weapons, especially in urban areas. And the echoes of shock still resonate after recent massacres in a school in Uvalde (Texas) and in a supermarket in Buffalo (New York), where the author of the mass shooting acted. with racist motivations. Precisely this commotion has contributed to a breakthrough not achieved in almost three decades: ready to approve gun control legislation with bipartisan support.
The ruling of the Supreme Court this Thursday is the cross of that coin and underlines the < strong>extremist drift of the High Court,where Donald Trump placed three magistrates who settled the majority of six conservative judges against three progressive ones. This very week the Supreme Court demolished one of the walls that separate church and state and is going to imminently issue other decisions in cases that put in check the constitutional protection of the right to abortion (with which the conservatives will end according to a draft leaked in May) or the authority of the federal government to regulate emissions of polluting gases.
“Contraries common sense”
The response to this Thursday's ruling has ranged from the exultation of the NRA to the celebration of Republican leaders, the rise in the stock price of the shares of the industry of weapons and the horror and outrage among activistsIn favor of regulation, legislators and democratic authorities, especially those who are trying to control more weapons.
The president, Joe Biden, has issued a statement in which, in addition to showing his “disappointment“, he has assured that “the sentence contradicts common sense and the Constitution and should deeply concern us all” , a message also launched by Vice President Kamala Harris.
Today's Supreme Court ruling on guns is deeply troubling as it defies commonsense and the Constitution. Lives are at stake. Congress should pass the bipartisan gun safety proposal immediately and continue to do more to protect our communities.
— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) June 23, 2022
In New York, the state directly affected for now, Governor Kathy Hochul plans to convene a legislative session in July to seek answers to a sentence that she has defined as “reckless” and “reprehensible” . “They have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions,” she has denounced. “We can have restrictions on free speech, you can't yell fire in a full theater, but somehow no second amendment restrictions are allowed.”
The mayor of New York, Eric Adams, a former police officer, has also harshly criticized a sentence that predicts that “ to New Yorkers most at risk of gun violence” and has promised to fight it saying: “We cannot allow New York to become the Wild West”.