The nation’s highest court has struck down gun-carrying ‘restrictions’ under a New York state law, even as America faces a spike in crime in big cities and a frightening series of mass killings, including two in May, in Buffalo (10 African-American dead) and in a school in Texas (21 killed, including 19 children).
“It’s stupid, just stupid,” exclaims Sushmita Peters, a New Yorker from the popular borough of Queens who says she fears new massacres at “school or hospital”.
“From now on, we can’t trust anyone,” thinks this 23-year-old employee.
Upon the shock announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington, Kathy Hochul, Democratic governor of the country’s fourth state (20 million inhabitants) protested against a “scandalous, absolutely scandalous” decision which “removes our rights to meaningful restrictions” on firearms.
PHOTO KEVIN P. COUGHLIN, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Kathy Hochul, Democratic Governor of New York State, denounced a “scandalous, absolutely scandalous” decision.
–
“I am sorry that this dark day has come,” added the chosen one.
“Wave of violence”
For his part, Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, a cultural mosaic with profound socio-economic inequalities of nine million souls, expressed his fear that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence could fuel “a wave of violence by firearm “.
This strong African-American city councilor, a former police captain who has made the fight against gun violence the backbone of his mandate, promised “cooperation to curb the risks created by this decision”.
Because “we can’t let New York turn into Far West “, he launched.
Mme Hochul also attacked the lack of “Second Amendment limits” in the US Constitution, referring to the 1791 provision that has protected the right to own a firearm in the United States for more than 200 years.
The governor finally accused conservative Supreme Court justices of acting “recklessly” and vowed to “protect New Yorkers from gun violence.”
His Democratic colleague at the head of the justice of New York, the very active Attorney General Letitia James, has pledged to “defend the constitutionality of the laws” of the State of New York in the face of federal justice.
New York worries
The Supreme Court’s ruling concerns a New York law that since 1913 has limited the issuance of concealed-carry permits to people who have reason to believe they might have to defend themselves, for example because of their occupation. or threats against them.
This legislation was being challenged in court by two gun owners, who had been denied licenses, and by an affiliate of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which campaigns for a literal reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. .
Interviewed by AFP, residents of New York, a city that leans sharply to the left, expressed their “concern” that “more and more people can carry weapons”.
Like Laurent Baud, a 38-year-old businessman, who found “people very comfortable in recent years because the city was very safe”, after the 1970-1980 decades of great violence. “But it’s still New York and I think we still need to be careful,” he breathes.
Keith Evans, an 80-year-old retired health professional from Colorado, critical, fatalistic, of the American political system made up of “the gun lobby, the NRA and politicians who only think about their re-election”.
Only Sam, a 75-year-old New Yorker who refuses to give his name, thinks that “it’s a good idea, self-defense, because when someone knows you are carrying a weapon, they behave carefully” .
cat and mouse
Gavin Newsom, governor of California, the most populous state in the United States, lambasted on Twitter a “shameful” and “dangerous” decision: a judgment of the highest American court which risks “encouraging a radical ideological program while restricting “the rights of states to protect their citizens (from the risk) of being shot in the street, in school, in church.”
In addition to California and New York, led by Democrats, the states of Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii and the District of Columbia, i.e. the capital Washington, also require such a license to carry of weapons.
In California, the issuance of this sesame depends on the sheriffs and local police, depending on the counties and their political colors.
It’s easier to get a license in a rural Republican county than in San Francisco, one of the most “progressive” cities in the United States.
The shock decision of the Supreme Court does not immediately break the local laws restricting the carrying of weapons but will certainly provoke multiple legal actions.
“There will be a game of cat and mouse which will be interesting to observe” between progressives and conservatives, predicts Jeffrey Fagan, professor of law at Columbia University in New York.
Faithful to their position since always, elected representatives of the Republican Party praised the decision of the Supreme Court: their boss in the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, estimated on Twitter that the judgment “guarantees the right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves without interference from the » federal government.
But in the evening, the United States Senate passed a bill backed by elected officials from both major parties, with restrictions on access to guns and billions of dollars to fund mental health and safety. in schools. The project, adopted by 65 votes – including fifteen Republicans – against 33, has every chance of being validated in the House of Representatives on Friday.
–
–
–
Ana FERNÁNDEZ
France Media Agency
–
The nation’s highest court has struck down gun-carrying ‘restrictions’ under a New York state law, even as America faces a spike in crime in big cities and a frightening series of mass killings, including two in May, in Buffalo (10 African-American dead) and in a school in Texas (21 killed, including 19 children).
“It’s stupid, just stupid,” exclaims Sushmita Peters, a New Yorker from the popular borough of Queens who says she fears new massacres at “school or hospital”.
“From now on, we can’t trust anyone,” thinks this 23-year-old employee.
Upon the shock announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington, Kathy Hochul, Democratic governor of the country’s fourth state (20 million inhabitants) protested against a “scandalous, absolutely scandalous” decision which “removes our rights to meaningful restrictions” on firearms.
PHOTO KEVIN P. COUGHLIN, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Kathy Hochul, Democratic Governor of New York State, denounced a “scandalous, absolutely scandalous” decision.
–
“I am sorry that this dark day has come,” added the chosen one.
“Wave of violence”
For his part, Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, a cultural mosaic with profound socio-economic inequalities of nine million souls, expressed his fear that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence could fuel “a wave of violence by firearm “.
This strong African-American city councilor, a former police captain who has made the fight against gun violence the backbone of his mandate, promised “cooperation to curb the risks created by this decision”.
Because “we can’t let New York turn into Far West “, he launched.
Mme Hochul also attacked the lack of “Second Amendment limits” in the US Constitution, referring to the 1791 provision that has protected the right to own a firearm in the United States for more than 200 years.
The governor finally accused conservative Supreme Court justices of acting “recklessly” and vowed to “protect New Yorkers from gun violence.”
His Democratic colleague at the head of the justice of New York, the very active Attorney General Letitia James, has pledged to “defend the constitutionality of the laws” of the State of New York in the face of federal justice.
New York worries
The Supreme Court’s ruling concerns a New York law that since 1913 has limited the issuance of concealed-carry permits to people who have reason to believe they might have to defend themselves, for example because of their occupation. or threats against them.
This legislation was being challenged in court by two gun owners, who had been denied licenses, and by an affiliate of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which campaigns for a literal reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. .
Interviewed by AFP, residents of New York, a city that leans sharply to the left, expressed their “concern” that “more and more people can carry weapons”.
Like Laurent Baud, a 38-year-old businessman, who found “people very comfortable in recent years because the city was very safe”, after the 1970-1980 decades of great violence. “But it’s still New York and I think we still need to be careful,” he breathes.
Keith Evans, an 80-year-old retired health professional from Colorado, critical, fatalistic, of the American political system made up of “the gun lobby, the NRA and politicians who only think about their re-election”.
Only Sam, a 75-year-old New Yorker who refuses to give his name, thinks that “it’s a good idea, self-defense, because when someone knows you are carrying a weapon, they behave carefully” .
cat and mouse
Gavin Newsom, governor of California, the most populous state in the United States, lambasted on Twitter a “shameful” and “dangerous” decision: a judgment of the highest American court which risks “encouraging a radical ideological program while restricting “the rights of states to protect their citizens (from the risk) of being shot in the street, in school, in church.”
In addition to California and New York, led by Democrats, the states of Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii and the District of Columbia, i.e. the capital Washington, also require such a license to carry of weapons.
In California, the issuance of this sesame depends on the sheriffs and local police, depending on the counties and their political colors.
It’s easier to get a license in a rural Republican county than in San Francisco, one of the most “progressive” cities in the United States.
The shock decision of the Supreme Court does not immediately break the local laws restricting the carrying of weapons but will certainly provoke multiple legal actions.
“There will be a game of cat and mouse which will be interesting to observe” between progressives and conservatives, predicts Jeffrey Fagan, professor of law at Columbia University in New York.
Faithful to their position since always, elected representatives of the Republican Party praised the decision of the Supreme Court: their boss in the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, estimated on Twitter that the judgment “guarantees the right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves without interference from the » federal government.
But in the evening, the United States Senate passed a bill backed by elected officials from both major parties, with restrictions on access to guns and billions of dollars to fund mental health and safety. in schools. The project, adopted by 65 votes – including fifteen Republicans – against 33, has every chance of being validated in the House of Representatives on Friday.
–
Related posts:
Vietnam and Africa step up educational cooperationnbsp;
“The madams” say goodbye after 15 years: “We stop at a peak”