Justice Stephen Breyer’s mention of mass shootings across the United States prompted a scathing rebuttal from Justice Samuel Alito over the Supreme Court opinion released Thursday that overturned a New York gun restriction law for violating the Second Amendment.
In his dissent, joined by Democratic-appointed Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Breyer argued, “The dangers posed by firearms can take many forms,” tacking on a list of shootings in the country, including the recent attacks in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.
“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,” Breyer wrote, marking one of his final opinions on the high court before Ketanji Brown Jackson succeeds him as the latest justice on the bench.
DOBBS ABORTION CASE LOOMS AS ONE OF NINE CASES LEFT IN THE SUPREME COURT TERM
“The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so,” the retiring justice added.
Alito, who was among the six Republican-appointed justices who found the New York law unconstitutional, filed a concurring majority opinion in response that challenged Breyer’s mass shooting concerns.
“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. … Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years?” Alito asked.
Alito asked the dissenting party whether they believe New York’s 108-year-old law deters such mass shootings. “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,” Alito wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also sided with the majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that 43 states have what is called a “shall issue” gun regime, that is, concealed carry applicants may undergo steps, such as fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, training in firearms handling and laws regarding the use of force, or other preliminary requirements, before receiving a license.
The New York law, ruled unconstitutional on Thursday, imposed what is known as a “may issue” regime, meaning an applicant would be granted a concealed carry license if they show some sort of special need or “proper cause.”
By striking down the Empire State law, the court also clears the way for legal challenges in states with similar gun regime laws, including Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Kavanaugh said those states could continue to restrict licenses only if the licensing regimes are centered on similar requirements found in the other 43 states.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided in a concurrence to Kavanaugh’s statement, arguing that his interpretation of “shall issue” regime rules is entirely constitutional as long as it is “based on objective criteria.”
