Get out of the New York State exception. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court, tightened the law relating to the carrying of arms in New York State, just a month after the killing of Uvalde which resulted in 21 deaths.
Seized by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and two of its members, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home. A decision made with six conservative votes against three liberals.
Until then, and because a law passed in 1911 and clarified in 1913, it was necessary, in addition to the license to carry a firearm, to justify a “just reason” for smuggling a firearm out of New York State. “A concept left to the appreciation of the authorities, that’s the problem”, assures Didier Combeau, US expert and author of “Americans and firearms” (Belin).
What does the sentence of the Supreme Court say?
In concrete terms, New Yorkers will no longer have to justify this “valid reason” for sneaking a weapon out of their home. The Supreme Court ruled that New York State legislation violated the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees equality among citizens, as all US citizens do not have the same gun rights.
“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a gun in self-defense out of their home,” Conservative Judge Clarence Thomas also congratulates on the announcement of the sentence.
What changes?
“Not everyone will be able to carry a weapon outside,” assures Marie-Christine Bonzom. In fact, it will always be mandatory to have a permit that requires, among other things, the age of majority. But, for Didier Combeau, once the conditions necessary to obtain it are met, “New York State should be forced to issue permits as it will no longer be able to make discretionary decisions.”
This Supreme Court ruling could also have consequences in the other six states (including California, which denounced a “shameful” and “dangerous” decision) where similar legislation applies. “The decisions of the Supreme Court are previous, anticipates Didier Combeau. Legislation in other states will be considered unconstitutional. In fact, they will have no choice but to adapt ”.
What reactions?
Kathy Hochul, Democratic Governor of New York State, was among the first to protest Thursday morning, denouncing an “absolutely scandalous” decision. An opinion shared by the mayor of New York City, also a Democrat, Eric Adams. “We will continue to do everything we can to work with our federal, state and local partners to protect our city,” he said on his Twitter account.
Same story for US President Joe Biden who says he is “deeply disappointed”. In a statement, the US Department of Justice reaffirmed his determination to “save innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal gun laws.”
For its part, the US arms lobby, the NRA, hailed a “turning point for the righteous men and women of America and the result of decades of struggle.”
Towards two-speed legislation?
Just hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Senate passed a law restricting access to firearms. This text, which will be voted on Friday by the House of Representatives, provides in particular for the strengthening of criminal and psychological background checks for children under 21 who wish to purchase a weapon.
“In reality we have a judicial power and another legislature that are not of the same wavelength”, analyzes Marie-Christine Bonzom, who recalls that “in the end it is the Supreme Court that interprets the laws”. A court today made up of six conservative and three liberal judges, all appointed for life.
A situation that leads Anne Deysine, lecturer and author of “The United States and Democracy” (L’harmattan), to think that “the restrictive measures adopted or that could be adopted by the Democrats risk being, one after the other, declared unconstitutional. ”Thus preventing further restrictions on the arms issue in the United States.
