They ruled that New York’s gun laws violate the 14th Amendment.
Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
[…]
A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250–251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government.
[…]
At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions
[…]
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
Hmmmm. IIRC, that’s the first time the 14th has been invoked with regard to the 2nd.
REALLY big deal if that’s the case.
Well, this one should certainly have heads exploding. This USSC is refusing to allow government to infringe upon your constitutional rights under the color of state and federal law. This court is doing a lot of unwinding.
It is a big deal. While I think the case could have been ruled the same way on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, ruling the way they did invokes an even stronger defense. For a future court to reverse this, they would not only have to decide that the 14th Amendment can be arbitrarily applied, thus opening up a massive door for states to ignore all sorts of federal laws, but they would also have to take on the 2nd Amendment by itself. Brilliant ruling.
>The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
Exactly. That’s why comparing bearing arms to driving a car isn’t a correct analogy…one is a privilege and and the other is a right.
Beyond that, P., restricting an OBJECT is not the same as restricting an ACTION (gun v. driving.) The Constitution is made for not restricting acts; it’s a morality document, so to speak.
‘Dersh’ is missing Philosophy 100-400. Probably due to age.
>restricting an OBJECT is not the same as restricting an ACTION
Banning a book is just as wrong as making it illegal to read it, no?
>The Constitution is made for not restricting acts
I’ve been saying for years (decades?) that the Bill o’ Rights is a restriction on restrictions.
The Constitution and the BoR lay out what the FedGov CAN do and also what it can NOT do–that is, what only the States and/or the citizens should be concerned with. States, e.g., are the only ones concerned with elections management.
Laws, OTOH, are supposed to fill in the blanks, so long as they meet the Constitution’s criteria.