by the Epoch Times and Cairns News
The US Supreme Court voted 6–3 on June 23 to strike down New York state’s draconian concealed carry gun permitting system on constitutional grounds, recognizing for the first time a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
This judgement removes any hope of Marxist President Joe Biden and his Democrat colleagues of taking guns from law-abiding American citizens. It also has ramifications for Australia’s much maligned gun owners who have been pilloried by the ABC, Labor Party-Green junta and the Liberal Party simply for owning a firearm.
Australian courts now must take heed of the inalienable right of freemen to own and carry a firearm for their inherent right of self defence.
The ruling is a sweeping victory for Second Amendment gun ownership rights and may help to undo restrictive gun control laws outside New York state, possibly including so-called red flag laws, which allow the confiscation of guns in certain circumstances with limited due process.
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court has been strengthening Second Amendment protections in recent years, and observers have said that the court’s six-member conservative supermajority could help expand gun ownership protections. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), it held that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”
The ruling comes amid rising crime rates, activist demands to defund police departments, and a Biden administration push to strengthen gun control policies. A legislative package, introduced in the wake of a series of high-profile mass shootings, is moving forward in Congress.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) hailed the decision, calling it a “watershed win for good men and women all across America” and taking credit for the victory after “a decades-long fight the NRA has led.”
“The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home,” LaPierre said.
President Joe Biden condemned the new ruling, which he said “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution and should deeply trouble us all.”
“I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line,” Biden said.
The Empire State’s gun permit law, as with laws in seven other states, generally requires an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so, according to state law. An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” according to a 1980 ruling by the Supreme Court of New York in Klenosky v. New York City Police Department.
The specific issue before the court was whether the state’s denial of the petitioning individuals’ applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense violates the U.S. Constitution.
Oral arguments in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, court file 20-843, an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, were heard on Nov. 3.
Respondent Kevin Bruen heads the New York State Police. Founded in 1871, the lead petitioner, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, describes itself as “the state’s largest and nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization,” and as the official NRA-affiliated state association in New York.
The majority opinion (pdf) was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who declared that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the 14th Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote, before quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (1961).
“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government … must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”
It makes no sense to deny Americans the ability to defend themselves outside their homes, he said.
“To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections. Moreover, confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself,’” Thomas wrote, quoting the Heller opinion.
“After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,’ and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. … Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted, “there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection. Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their [rights].”
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.
“In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described 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.”
Yeah Tony the madman Gunner got out of the madhouse and left his cohorts behind to maintain madness. Ed
Yeah Old Kodger theres flocks of them. Ed
J Madison, quote “The second amendment applies here” unquote..
Whilst I concur with your opinion, and for the same reason, just try to make it stick here.
The problem is that they have the guns, the thugs (police), and the money. We, unfortunately have the sheeple, the Jews call us Goyem, it means cattle.
I believe, and have always believed that any home owner should be able to own a gun for security reasons. And should be legally carrying the arm outside the home. Stringed restrictions should apply as to the age of individual. No less then 21 year old and so forth.
The private corporation, calling themselves the Australian Government is in fact a Political subdivision of the United States of America, having its corporate registration with the American Securities Commission.
It has no existence under the Crown or Our Constitution of 1901. It uses a currency attached to the American Reserve Banks Dollar. The lawful currency of our Commonwealth remains the Pound.
Therefore these pretend governments are bound under the laws and Constitution of their place of registration, The USA.
The second amendment applies here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
in Australia you are facing a CRIMINAL offence if you carry a Very small Eg inch blade pen knife in your bag……….
I was denied a rifle licence because I am white. No kidding.
I need a rifle to protect myself and elderly Aboriginal residents from rogue bull buffalos, which have been known to kill people here in the Top End. I was trained in gun safety by the army, paid my application fee of $242, passed the written gun safety exam 100%, have no past offences or criminal record, and owned an inspected and installed gun safe.
The rifle is to protect lives, yet the NT Minister for Police said no. Anybody who thinks our governments have our interests and welfare at heart is delusional or criminal. Talking about criminal, I don’t get the $242 back either. So thieving off an age pensioner can be added to their crimes.
If only Australia had a second amendment.
If only the USA ruling has a knock on effect here.
Unfortunately I doubt it will change anything here. Port Arthur did too good a job. Even some awake people are sceptical about the benefits of gun ownership.
We can but hope.
Quote: “It makes no sense to deny Americans the ability to defend themselves outside their homes, he said.” Unquote. “The same is applicable to own Australian society.”
INDEED: “Australian courts now must take heed of the inalienable right of freemen to own and carry a firearm for their inherent right of self-defense.”