BIG WIN FOR GUN RIGHTS: Supreme Court Strikes New York Gun Law In Major Ruling

(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, FIle)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public.

The justices’ 6-3 decision follows a series of recent mass shootings and is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities — including New York, Los Angeles and Boston — and elsewhere. About a quarter of the U.S. population live in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade.

The ruling comes as Congress is working toward passage of gun legislation following mass shootings in Texas,New York and California.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws. The Biden administration had urged the justices to uphold New York’s law.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the decision comes at a particularly painful time, when New York is still mourning the deaths of 10 people in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo. “This decision isn’t just reckless. It’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want,” she said.

In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll taken by gun violence. “Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day,“ Breyer wrote.

Backers of New York’s law had argued that striking it down would lead to more guns on the streets and higher rates of violent crime. Gun violence, which was already on the rise during the coronavirus pandemic has spiked anew.

In most of the country gun owners have little difficulty legally carrying their weapons in public. But that had been harder to do in New York and the handful of states with similar laws. New York’s law, which has been in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show “proper cause,” a specific need to carry the weapon.

The state issues unrestricted licenses where a person can carry their gun anywhere and restricted licenses that allow a person to carry the weapon but just for specific purposes such as hunting and target shooting or to and from their place of business.

The Supreme Court last issued a major gun decision in 2010. In that decision and a ruling from 2008 the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. The question for the court this time was about carrying one outside the home.

The challenge to the New York law was brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which describes itself as the nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization, and two men seeking an unrestricted ability to carry guns outside their homes.

The court’s decision is somewhat out of step with public opinion. About half of voters in the 2020 presidential election said gun laws in the U.S. should be made more strict, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of the electorate. An additional third said laws should be kept as they are, while only about 1 in 10 said gun laws should be less strict.

About 8 in 10 Democratic voters said gun laws should be made more strict, VoteCast showed. Among Republican voters, roughly half said laws should be kept as they are, while the remaining half closely divided between more and less strict.



  1. Who cares what sleepy joe or cuomo or hochul thinks? They can still keep gun violence under control by obliterating bail reform madness.
    BTW does thus Supreme Court ruling include having gun 🔫 at an airport?

  2. How ironic that wherever there are democrats in control there are MORE gun violence and murders than where there are REPUBLICANS in office.

    That should tell you how much Democrats care about killings and crime in general.

    Put more guns in the hands of good citizens let them get a good training… and the next time a bad guy starts shooting let’s hope some good guy won’t be far away to take him out

  3. Gun laws should be stricter. Persons who carry a gun when committing a crime should be punished, and should forfeit their right to sue for damages in the police overreact and injure them. The Democrats should give up their idea that the role of the police is to harass Conservatives defending themselves, and should go back to expecting the police to take down criminals who attack and rob people.

  4. I’m glad about this supreme court ruling on principle, even though I’m not sure I want more people carrying in practice.

    The SC’ s job is to evaluate laws in light of their constitutionality.
    As of now, the 2nd amendment all stands and permits carrying weapons.

    The fact that many people disagree doesn’t matter. If there are enough people who want to change the constitution, there’s a mechanism in place to do so.
    Until they repeal it, the 2A still exists.

    Likewise- the recent shootings don’t change the constitution.
    The 2A exists whether or not purple use guns to commit crimes.

    If something is forbidden, the judges should rule that way even if no one commits a crime.
    If it’s permitted, the judges should rule that way even if it’s abused.

    The judges need to recognize their role.
    Thankfully in this case the majority did.

  5. A great win for the pro-gun community! Hopefully this will put pro-lifers in their place!! There’s more to life than worrying about people dying, if we can’t guarantee people’s most basic human right to carry around assault rifles and machine guns, is life really worth living?

  6. “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
    – Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

    The Constitution prevails.

  7. We need this equalizer against these attacks from these savages. I can’t wait till a little ole granny blows one of them apart!

  8. There’s no question that this ruling will not contribute to an increase in premeditated shootings or mass killings. Did any of the perpetrators of mass shootings that we know of have a license to carry a concealed weapon? Obviously not. Would the fact that there was a law that they cannot carry a concealed weapon have stopped them from doing the crime. Would it have even made them stop and think about it? Definitely not. So all the Dems’ handwringing and moaning is meaningless.

    Realistically, the fact that anyone can be carrying a concealed weapon at any time is somewhat of a deterrent to criminals, since they are at greater risk of being stopped by a bullet. Especially over time, after a few such criminals are stopped by legal-carrying citizens …

  9. Why for heaven’s sake would someone need a gun if not to kill??? THE REPUBLICANS AND THE SUPREME COURT ARE MURDERS. Look at the UK, which has strict gun control there is much much much less killings then in the USA!!!

  10. Hashem Yirachem. This is a tragic decision for security. As Jews in golus we are almost always targets. Hashem Yishmor. Ultimately it is the Ribono Shel Oilam that watches us

    It is sad how this site twists every conservative decision to present it in a positive light. Apparently we have learned nothing from all the gun violence in this country.

    Well regulated militia means well regulated. If Roe can be overturned so can Heller.

  11. Definitely against the Constitution, who cares tho at this point, not sure I’m safer from gun control if thugs get theirs on the black market, anyway, civilization is collapsing, and crossbows will be more useful for survival after its collapse cuz bullets ultimately will run out. The solution is crossbows.

  12. @not afraid and @crazykanoiy:

    I’m genuinely curious how you think those who want to kill us haven’t already been carrying around guns illegally, as we’ve seen for decades in places like New York, baltimore, and chicago. What this ruling does is allow us to actually defend ourselves. There’s a reason anti-semitic attacks don’t happen in States like Texas besides for places that advertise their anti-gun status.