USA

Supreme Court gun ruling opens door to next battle: Where can it be carried?

Washington – State laws banning people from carrying firearms in “sensitive” places provide the basis for the next battle, including the Second Amendment, following a recent Supreme Court ruling. In public places as far as you can carry it.

Already challenging so-called sensitive location restrictions in New York and District of Columbia They argue that measures banning firearms from places of worship, college campuses, and public parks violate the right to keep and bear arms.

Joseph Blotcher, a Second Amendment expert and Duke Law School professor, told CBS News, “This will be an important and interesting battlefield in Second Amendment litigation.” . “So far, it has been a sleepy corner of the Second Amendment and academia. What makes a place sensitive to “that place?” “

In the 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision, the Supreme Court ruled that people have a constitutional right to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense. More than ten years later, in June, the High Court granted the right He overthrew New York’s permit system that banned carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense and restricted who could carry a concealed firearm in public.

Judge Clarence Thomas, many The June ruling listed “a small number” of sensitive 18th- and 19th-century places where guns were banned in the historical record, including state legislatures, polling stations, and courts, but “thus, these places are , the carrying of weapons may be prohibited pursuant to the Second Amendment.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said: Concurring opinion What he said were the limits of Supreme Court decisions, including that the Second Amendment allows for a variety of gun controls, including in sensitive places like schools and government buildings. It includes laws banning the carrying of firearms in

But what’s unclear from the examples given by the judge is the “principle that ties them together,” Brotcher said.

New York’s lawpassed after the Supreme Court nullified its licensing rules.

The law, which went into effect on September 1, was followed by gun rights group Gun Owners of America and its member Ivan Antonyuk, who said the state’s new regulations violated Second Amendment rights. Argued and immediately pulled out a legal challenge.

In their complaint, they said, given the scope of the list of significant places in New York, “it is difficult to imagine how a carry-on license holder could leave their home without breaking the law.” increase. [Concealed Carry Improvement Act]That’s exactly what Bruen warned,” referring to the court’s June ruling in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Federal Judges in Syracuse dismissed In a lawsuit in late August, he said there was a good chance gun rights advocates would succeed based on the substance of their lawsuit, noting that the law’s list of sensitive places was “a historical tradition of gun control in the country”. It is not deeply rooted in

In addition to objections from U.S. gun owners, the Jewish Gun Club of New York has challenged the state to restrict guns in sensitive areas, making it a crime for members to carry firearms in synagogues. and is preparing to file its own lawsuit.

“The focus of this New York Sensitive Places Statute is too broad and vague. said Amir Benno, a lawyer hired by the cancer club to challenge the law. “We have Second Amendment rights, but the fear of violating those rights and being charged with a felony will discourage people from exercising their freedom of religion.”

Although the lawsuit has not yet been filed, Benno said he and co-counsel Cory Morris believe that restrictions on confidential space in New York violate many Second and First Amendment rights. said it had signed the plaintiffs (individuals and places of worship) of

“This is not a myth. It is a very real and sad reality that Jews are being targeted and places of worship are being targeted with violence and extremism. By telegraphing to the world, you’re literally putting targets on the backs of all Jewish men and women,” Benno said.

The attacks are not limited to synagogues, but also extend to churches and mosques, where worshipers have “equal rights to possess weapons for self-defense” but are prohibited by New York law.

“This new law goes too far just to say that we are entitled to protection where we are,” said Zvi Waldman, founder of the Jewish Gun Club of New York. I just want to, I just want to be left alone.”

Waldman said some synagogues, mostly those with large memberships, could afford to hire private armed guards, but the cost of doing so would be a significant burden for smaller temples. .

“We can’t afford that,” he said. likewise. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. “

The Supreme Court has yet to directly address the constitutionality of state laws banning the use of guns in sensitive places, and the most important outstanding question for lower courts was Thomas’s June opinion. It will be how to apply the new test.

For firearms control to pass a constitutional mandate, the government must show it is consistent with the country’s historical traditions, Thomas said for the court’s 6-to-3 conservative majority. wrote.

“What makes those places sensitive? I think what the doctrine has to offer is not just a list of places, but the reasons for those places and not the other places. “That’s where we have so much uncertainty,” he said. It may come down to the judge’s intuition as to whether it resembles a potentially restricted market.”

But Benno is confident that New York’s laws banning the carrying of guns in sensitive places, especially places of worship, will not stand up to the Supreme Court’s test of new texts, history and tradition.

“The restrictions on weapons in chapels seem to have been the exception rather than the rule,” he said. “States can never prove that they have a historical tradition of what they’ve done here. This not only violates the Second Amendment, but goes right to the heart of the First Amendment: This is an unprecedented government overreach…”

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the government cannot ban the public carrying of firearms for self-defense is the most significant Second Amendment decision in more than a decade, and the judge’s decision to declare “confidential.” It can be years before you are asked to answer what “high-quality evidence” is. “Space and whether the government can ban firearms there.

“We are ready to fight this legal battle as best we can,” Benno said. We are confident in our legal validity. We are confident that the states do not have the law on their side.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-rights-supreme-court-second-amendment-sensitive-places-concealed-carry/ Supreme Court gun ruling opens door to next battle: Where can it be carried?

Back to top button