The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear a gun rights case that could mark a monumental shift for firearm carriers and lead to an increase in the number of people carrying guns in cities and states presently restricting some Second Amendment rights.
Justices will hear the case on Wednesday, which centers on New York‘s restrictive handgun permit law and whether challengers to the statute have a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Advocates for Second Amendment rights hope the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority will see the law as too restrictive, while gun control proponents have said any drop in restrictions could lead to more violence in the streets.
The Empire State’s law in question has been in place since 1913 and states that in order to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense, an individual applying for a permit must demonstrate “proper cause,” or a real need to carry the firearm. The state issues permits under the classification of restricted — allowing the individual to carry a gun in certain circumstances — or unrestricted, allowing the individual to carry a gun anywhere not otherwise prohibited by law.
Two private citizens, along with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, are challenging the law and have alleged to the court that it “makes it effectively impossible for an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to obtain a license to carry a handgun for self-defense.”
President of the NYSRPA, Tom King, told the the Washington Examiner Tuesday the case amounts to “unequal protection under the law,” noting New York has 62 counties where each county has a permit issuing officer who “is a judge, sometimes a sheriff.”
“You could have two or three judges in one county, and one of the judges could be anti-gun,” King said. “And if you were just unlucky enough to be assigned to him, for your pistol permit, you’re not going to get a concealed carry permit. Whereas if you get one of the other judges who believes in concealed carry, you’ll get it.”
JURY SELECTION BEGINS IN KYLE RITTENHOUSE TRIAL
The high court’s last major gun rights decisions happened in 2008 and 2010, which established the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller and a national right to keep a gun at home for self-defense in McDonald v. City of Chicago, respectively.
Most states allow residents to legally carry weapons when they go outside, however, eight states, including California, some Eastern states, and the District of Columbia, give the government complete discretion over the issuance of carry permits.
In September, President Joe Biden‘s administration urged the Supreme Court to uphold New York’s handgun restriction, the Justice Department arguing that justices should defer the legislative practice of imposing limits on guns to protect public safety.
The highest court’s hearing on the matter comes at a time when gun violence has surged in major cities throughout the nation, creating a climate that gun rights advocates say is a reason to be armed for self-defense.
Former President Donald Trump‘s conservative appointees to the court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were not on the bench during the last major gun rights ruling. The three justices have weighed on past Second Amendment rights cases, taking action on matters that could give pro-gun advocates optimism for an outcome in their favor.
But gun control groups are hoping the conservative court could still uphold the New York law. In a 7-4 vote earlier this year, judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s permit regulations.
Conservative Judge Jay Bybee wrote in March that a “careful review of history of early English and American regulation” found the “Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public,” adding that “government has the power to regulate arms in the public square.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The NYSRPA previously challenged another state law that imposed strict regulations on gun owners’ ability to transport their firearms outside their homes, prompting lawmakers to change the law and pull the case before the Supreme Court could rule.
