The Supreme Court announced today that it will refuse to hear a challenge to Texas’s ban on the public carrying of firearms by 18-20 year-olds. As a result, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding the partial gun-ban will stand.
However, the Justices are expected to soon take-up the broader issue of overly restrictive gun-carry laws in another series of cases that have been working their way through the judicial system.
In challenging Texas’s under-21 ban on concealed carry, the National Rifle Association had also asked the Court to address an essential initial question: whether the right to keep “and bear” arms extends outside of a gun owner’s home. To date, the Supreme Court has only firmly established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s general right to own a gun.
Although the Texas challenge only indirectly raised the crucial constitutional issue, at least one other case, a challenge to New Jersey’s heavily restrictive concealed carry law, directly raises the gun-carrying question for Supreme Court consideration. Due to a sharp split in opinions among the Federal appellate courts, the Justices are almost certain to intervene.
The Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits found that states may heavily restrict the carrying of firearms outside the home. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit invalidated Illinois’s ban on carrying weapons in public, and the Ninth Circuit overturned much of California’s restrictive concealed carry laws earlier this month.
When the nation’s High Court does ultimately review the firearms decisions, it could affect the handful of states with restrictive “may-issue” concealed carry permit laws. These laws require law-abiding citizens to prove the need to carry a gun to the satisfaction of a government official with sole discretion to grant or deny the application. In practice, many may-issue jurisdictions grant almost no concealed carry permits to typical Americans, a significant and unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of citizens in those states, according to gun-rights advocates.
Given the current composition of the Court, it’s likely that a majority will adopt the NRA’s view that “the core purpose of the Second Amendment is protecting the right to carry weapons for the purposes of self-defense – not only for self-defense within the home, but for self-defense, period.”
In short, the Supreme Court’s snub of the NRA’s case is a fleeting victory for gun-control activists. A majority of the Justices no doubt believe that our founding fathers were far too bright to establish a right to possess firearms that applies exclusively inside one’s home. They may just be biding their time before they make that seemingly forgotten fact official.
