The United States Supreme Court has struck down New York’s gun restrictions, calling it contrary to the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
–
A “scandalous” decision, on the Democratic side
“It’s stupid, just stupid”, exclaims to AFP 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 judgment 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 enjoy sensible restrictions” on firearms. “I am sorry that this dark day has come,” added the chosen one.
« Transformer New York en Far West »
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, promising “cooperation to curb the risks created by this decision”. Because “we can’t let New York turn into the Wild West,” he said.
Ms. Hochul also attacked the absence of “limits to the second amendment” of the American Constitution, in allusion to the provision of 1791 which has protected in the United States for more than 200 years the right to own a firearm. . 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’re carrying a weapon, they behave cautiously”.
The carrying of arms in debate, between freedom and restrictions
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.
–
