The Most Dangerous Gun Ruling In History, At The Worst Possible Time

century-old law that was struck down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, which required those seek­ing “concealed
-A +A
0

Photos: YouTube\Twitter

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday strik­ing down a New York gun law isn’t just the most signi­fic­ant ruling on the Second Amend­ment in a dozen years — it may be the most signi­fic­ant, and most danger­ous, such ruling in the nation’s history. At a time when the United States contin­ues to reel from mass shoot­ings and every­day gun viol­ence, this decision will make it far harder to ensure public safety.

Part of that has to do with the century-old law that was struck down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, which required those seek­ing “concealed carry” hand­gun licenses to show “proper cause” for such approval. But the even more danger­ous part of the decision comes from the court’s reas­on­ing, which dramat­ic­ally changes how judges decide what is consti­tu­tional when it comes to gun safety.

Back in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court for the first time recog­nized an indi­vidu­al’s right to own a gun for self-defense. The cent­ral right, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote then, was to protect “hearth and home.” The court never said how that newly discovered right applied to carry­ing a weapon outside the home — or what test should be applied.

In strik­ing down the New York law, Justice Clar­ence Thomas’s six-justice major­ity purpor­ted to rely on history, albeit a very select­ive read­ing of history. The opin­ion rather fren­et­ic­ally plucks examples out of the often contra­dict­ory morass of history to make its point, all while claim­ing to be simply rely­ing on the original public mean­ing of the amend­ment.

At the same time, the court offers surpris­ingly little guid­ance about what kinds of limits on carry­ing weapons New York can enact. It concedes that restric­tions may be allowed in “sens­it­ive places.” Based on the ques­tions asked during the oral argu­ment, it seemed the justices would specify what those places might be, with guns still prohib­ited in subways, schools, churches, perhaps Times Square, but there was no such guid­ance. The state legis­lature will try to pass such rules, courts will rule — and the issue will no doubt be back before the Supreme Court soon enough.

In 1791, when the Second Amend­ment was rati­fied, New York City had 33,000 resid­ents. Today it has more than 8 million. To me, as a resid­ent of New York City, the notion that thou­sands or hundreds of thou­sands of people might be walk­ing around armed, think­ing them­selves a “good guy with a gun,” is, frankly, terri­fy­ing. Yet Thomas made clear that Manhat­tan, despite its dens­ity, is not a sens­it­ive place. Exempt­ing "cities from the Second Amend­ment … would evis­cer­ate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,” he wrote.

But the implic­a­tions of the decision are far broader than the New York law. They stretch across the whole coun­try. The bigger impact will prob­ably be felt in hundreds of other gun laws in all 50 states.

Since Heller and a compan­ion case in 2010, the Supreme Court turned away chances to rule on this ques­tion, while hundreds of lower courts developed an approach. Yes, they ruled, there is an indi­vidual right — but soci­ety has rights, too. Borrow­ing from First Amend­ment law, they first asked whether a Second Amend­ment right was involved, and then applied “inter­me­di­ate scru­tiny”: Gun rights can be limited by concerns over public safety. This consensus view was propounded by Repub­lican-appoin­ted judges and Demo­cratic-appoin­ted judges, and adop­ted by every federal appeals court that considered the issue.

The ruling Thursday says that all these judges got it wrong. Instead, the major­ity said, courts must assess gun rules espe­cially focus­ing solely on “history and tradi­tion.” Don’t look at public safety; search for analo­gies to past laws from a very differ­ent time.

That means the National Rifle Asso­ci­ation and other gun-rights lawyers get a do-over. They will go to court to chal­lenge dozens of laws that have been upheld in recent years, to say, no, you must apply “history and tradi­tion.” The NRA is a husk of its former self, but its views live on in the life­time-appoin­ted justices who have now ruled.

Not only courts but also state and local govern­ments will have to parse this fuzzy stand­ard, at a moment when gun viol­ence is rising, and fears of gun crime have shaken famil­ies every­where. It will make it harder for govern­ment at all levels to restrict gun viol­ence, and surely harder for offi­cials to know what they can lawfully do.

The United States has nearly 400 million guns — more than we have people. Ours is the only coun­try in the world with so many guns. And gun viol­ence is higher here, too.

The implic­a­tions of this decision will play out in courtrooms and legis­latures across the coun­try in months and years to come. Where they will really play out, though, is on the streets, where there will be more guns, more armed confront­a­tions and more crime.

By Michael Waldman\Brennan Center

This article was origin­ally published by the Wash­ing­ton Post.

Also Check Out...

Get fresh with True Laundry Detergent and join the movement today!
Get America's Best-Selling
voting-rights organizations Wednesday urged a federal appeals court to reject part of a controversial Florida elections law
Voting-Rights Group: Florida'
A diversity report found the NBA posting nearly across-the-board gains in hiring of minorities and women
NBA Diversity Study Finds Job
Advocates for Justice Paralegal School announced “Foreclosure Defense Lawsuit DIY Online Course,”
Foreclosure Defense Group Offering
August is National Black Business Month
How To Support Black-Owned
Walker has agreed to debate incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock Oct. 14 in Savannah.
Herschel Walker To Debate Raphael