“States will have to move to what’s called a ‘must issue’ system rather than ‘may issue’, which means you can apply for it, you don’t have to have personal, specific needs, like I was threatened. or I’m a security guard,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. His book, “The Second Amendment: A Biography,” was cited in Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent.
Under New York law, in effect since 1913, residents were required to show good cause for carrying a concealed weapon in public for self-defense. Likewise, in these other “likely to issue” states — although each state law uses a different approach — local authorities can decide whether or not the individual should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Judges said Thursday New York law conflicts with Second Amendment right to bear arms
As for New York, where Hochul and other state leaders have already pledged to act in response to the court ruling, Waldman said lawmakers could try to respond by limiting where people can wear these. weapons, like the subway, schools or Times Square. . Lawmakers could also consider other licensing requirements, such as background checks.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted in Thursday’s concurring opinion that 43 states, which have “must issue” licensing regimes, are not barred from imposing licensing requirements. Thursday’s ruling, he said, only affects discretionary licensing regimes, aka “may-issue” regimes.
Kavanaugh said states with the most stringent licensing requirements can continue to restrict such permits if the criteria meet those of “must issue” states. About a third of states have some form of “must issue” law, giving state officials some discretion when it comes to accepting or rejecting firearms applications. But in half the states, Americans are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a license.
It’s important to note that these state laws exist on a spectrum and don’t always fall into one category or another when it comes to “may issue” or “must issue” regimes, Esther Sanchez-Gomez, senior litigation counsel at Giffords Law Center, said in a press call on Thursday, complicating the meaning of the court’s opinion.
The National Rifle Association has fought for 40 years against laws ‘likely to be issued’ and called Thursday’s decision a ‘monumental victory’, while noting that ‘many unconstitutional gun control laws remain’ in the USA.
“Today’s ruling established that the right to carry does not disappear at a person’s front door, but many unconstitutional gun control laws remain in America. The NRA will continue to fight against these laws until every law-abiding American can exercise their right to defend themselves and their families with the firearm of their choice,” the group said in a statement.
The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen, Waldman said, but Americans should expect the NRA and other gun rights groups to launch a barrage of legal challenges to regulations such as assault weapons bans or background checks.
“What this really means is that the NRA and gun rights advocates will get a helping hand and be in court tomorrow, challenging hundreds of gun laws across the United States.” , Waldman said. “It will be very difficult for states, cities and Congress to know what is allowed right now, what type of regulation or guns are even constitutional? The court did not provide clarity here in terms of New York law.
Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we transmit this news automatically and translate it through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.