In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?
The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.
And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.
That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.
Prepare appropriately.—Joe]
“Federal law . . . bars the sale of a handgun to anyone
under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1”
Didn’t the ATF argue that this bar only applies to licensed dealers? Might be a followup to Hirschfeld
While the decision is favorable, the court is unanimous on treating the absolute right to keep and bear arms like a privilege subject to government regulation; they only differ on the degree allowed. One analysis observes that they seem to ignore the clear and voluminous writing of those that authored, debated and ratified the Second Amendment in favor of much later commentators. The opinion analyzes the text in detail while essentially ignoring the phrase “shall not be infringed”.
“Shall not be infringed”, is far to cut and dried for anyone in government to swallow whole.
But yesterday was a giant win. It will make it that much easier to enforce “shall not be infringed.” and the coming battles.
Don’t worry, the commies ain’t going to give up. But now’s a good time to reload. And rearrange your mags.
But hot damn! A little common sense out of government? Who would have thought it!
The communists will never realize how SCOTUS just saved their asses for them.
Their attitude toward guns is what will get them killed in America. It’s the one thing Americas will never give up.
A private citizen being armed is seen as a direct insult by those of the top-down, hierarchical, central planning, power-lust mindset. We’re supposed to worship them, and fear them, never disregarding their wishes and whims. That we should be thought of as having legitimate minds, and even lives of our own, separate from their designs for us, is itself a personal, egregious and unforgivable insult to them. It is a direct affront to their imagined authority. Thus our U.S. constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is both an insult and a threat!
THAT is what drives their thinking, and explains their rhetoric. Their twisted and mangled rationalizations lack all reasoning and common sense altogether, and are often outright lies, but they do NOT lack motive or clear purpose!
So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves.…” — Luke 22:25-26
Do you realize that California,New York, Massachusetts, etc. are now constitutional carry states, at least until they pass shall issue laws?
A case could be made for that. And you could end up paying $100k and years of your life trying to convince NYC that you are right.
Technically, you are correct. The best (and, potentially, most expensive) kind of correct.
I personally am not ashamed to admit that I am way too chickenshit to turn myself into a test case.
It’ll be interesting to see how Bruen‘s reasoning is applied to carry for Americans from out of state.
Not a problem for states with universal recognition. It would be a small problem for states with extensive reciprocity agreements.
It’ll absolutely be a problem for states with no reciprocity and no way to remotely apply for a state-specific CPL/CCW in a timely fashion and at a reasonable cost. The Bruen decision left to the states the requirements for the licensing, including reasonable fees, training requirements, time of processing, but they explicitly called out as-implemented challenges such as excessive fees, unreasonable delays (including those from undermanning the licensing dept), punitive extraneous requirements, etc.
In any case, we’ll see if they next time I go to Hawaii, I can go packing.