Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Wayne Whalen
Next Post: Campaign notebook
Posted in:
* SCOTUSBlog…
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.
The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’s first significant decision on gun rights in over a decade. In a far-reaching ruling, the court made clear that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” protects a broad right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Going forward, Thomas explained, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history
The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities. […]
In an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh contended that Thursday’s ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.” Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Arguing that the question before the court was “the extent to which the Second Amendment restricts different States (and the Federal Government) from working out solutions to” gun violence “through democratic processes,” Breyer faulted his colleagues for striking down the New York law without a record that would allow it to determine how the New York scheme actually works in practice, “without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
The ruling is here.
* New York Times…
Justice Thomas wrote that citizens may not be required to explain to the government why they sought to exercise a constitutional right.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he wrote.
Really? How about parade and demonstration permits and lobbyist registration?
* AG Raoul…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
“Today’s decision striking down New York’s statutory scheme does not affect Illinois’ concealed-carry laws or other gun safety measures, and the steps that we have taken as an office to prevent gun violence and build safe communities remain preserved. In fact, the Supreme Court’s opinion cites Illinois as being among those states whose laws are not affected by the decision.
“In the wake of the numerous occurrences of shocking gun violence that have taken place around the country, we continue to do all we can. My office vigorously defends Illinois’ gun safety laws, prosecutes gun trafficking cases and individuals making false statements on FOID applications, and supports programs to assist crime victims and prevent community violence. We are also working with law enforcement and community partners to develop a state-of-the-art crime-gun tracing database for the state of Illinois.”
* G-PAC…
“The Supreme Court’s decision in the New York case does not threaten any of our Illinois gun laws. It explicitly affirms the constitutionality of concealed carry permit laws like the one Illinois adopted in 2013,” said Kathleen Sances, President & CEO of the Gun Violence Prevention PAC. “The ruling also recognizes that states may adopt a variety of regulations on who may own or carry guns and the types of guns that are lawful. We will continue to work for the effective enforcement of our existing laws and for new commonsense laws that are constitutional.”
* However, former NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde points to this footnote on page 30…
That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
He also believes that Illinois may have to accept other states’ concealed carry licenses, that the rights of individual sheriffs to object to CC permits could be under fire, etc. Say what you want about Vandermyde, but people laughed (myself included) when he predicted that Illinois would be forced by the courts to institute a concealed carry law.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:19 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Wayne Whalen
Next Post: Campaign notebook
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Roberts and Kav’s concurrence explicitly referenced “shall issue” regimes as a limit on the opinion, so Thomas might have trouble counting to five if he wants to go after them next.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:27 pm
“He also believes that Illinois may have to accept other states’ concealed carry licenses, … .”
So, he’s predicting Gresham’s Law (bad money will drive out the good) will be applied to CC. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (the Pat Quinn of Ohio /s) eliminated the requalification requirement for CC. So, to have Illinois CC you have to periodically requalify, but we have to recognize Ohio CC without requalification?
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:39 pm
It appears many progressives will not be happy with the 14th Amendment being used for purposed they don’t believe in. Can’t say progressives didn’t have a good run using the 14th Amendment .That’s the danger when you don’t control the court.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:41 pm
this ruling and Heller are so confusing because they have these tiny but you can regulate comments but you can’t regulate decisions. Go ahead and sue, gun nuts. meanwhile, just write regulations cause their decisions say regulate.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:47 pm
== Roberts and Kav’s concurrence explicitly referenced “shall issue” regimes as a limit on the opinion, so Thomas might have trouble counting to five if he wants to go after them next.==
While in general the concept of those laws will still be ok under this ruling, after today a specific law will now have to be defended using a much higher level of legal scrutiny than courts have done in the past. That might very well open up challenges, at least stronger arguments, against the things Todd mentions.
Comment by fs Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:53 pm
Anyone illinois near prohibition on nonresidents is a problem under this ruling i. Believe the state will be forced to recognize out of state permits like drivers license
They can require an out of state permit but the law wont hold
And the he LE objections make part of our law may issue by non objective standards and opinions of a board. Ask those people who waited over a year to get a decision
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:54 pm
Todd V, your gun cred is lacking. When you get me the right to own a tank in Illinois because I feel threatened, then talk to me.
Comment by low level Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 2:56 pm
What Arsenal said about the concurring opinion - there are only 4 votes to do what Todd wants and the concurring effectively puts a limit on the majority
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:00 pm
Low lever—. You can own a tank and with a working main gun with the right permits nothin in illinois law says you cant
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:05 pm
It’s a constitution, not a suicide pact. Time to amend it. Our militia is very poorly regulated and this court does not care about innocent victims of gun violence.
Todd and other gun fetishists, this is your zenith. This is the high water mark for unlimited gun access. The majority of the country is in favor of sanity and I expect will be galvanized to do whatever it takes to end the carnage on our streets and in our kids schools.
Enjoy it while you can. Your grandchildren will live in a different and safer world.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:06 pm
Todd -
Illinois requires requalification. Are you saying this decision will require Illinois to recognize Ohio CC, which does not require requalification?
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:10 pm
== What Arsenal said about the concurring opinion - there are only 4 votes to do what Todd wants and the concurring effectively puts a limit on the majority==
Well, not necessarily. CJR and Kav still joined Thomas’ opinion on full, they just wrote separate. Do they bolt if a future case crosses the limits they identified in their concurrence? I don’t know, and I think this Court is just about to demonstrate that precedent ain’t worth that much anyway.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:12 pm
Growing up on the mean streets of Downers Grove taught our guy the importance of having adequate protection..
Comment by low level Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:13 pm
So this ruling explictly says that the “shall issue” regulations in 43 states aren’t effected, so for now FOID is good law. Now, the current incarnation of SCOTUS laughs in the face of precedent, logic, and consistency so who knows what case they’ll take up next, but for now there’s no reason to think FOID will go away.
We probably should work on the backlog though, no need to give them more ammunition than they already have with Mitch McConnell’s hand picked court.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:18 pm
Anyone— im on a bulldozer so typing from my phone but YES
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:20 pm
Other parts of Illinois law will now be challenged, including carry restriction and waiting periods to get a CCL, and the State will have a hard time defending some of its laws and rules with no facts to back them up under “Strict Scrutiny”.
Comment by thisjustinagain Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:37 pm
@ Rich
“How about parade and demonstration permits and lobbyist registration?”
They’ve been there, done that. Check out Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992)(finding that a parade permit ordinance which vested virtually unlimited discretion in a city administrator violated the 1st Amendment); City of Littleton Colorado v. Z-J Gifts D-4, LLC, 124 S.Ct. 2219 (2004)(holding that an adult business license must use “neutral and nondiscretionary criteria” in order to survive a challenge under the First Amendment”). Heck this type of First Amendment analysis goes back to Shuttlesworth in 1969. Glad to see a consistent application.
As for lobsters, I’m not aware of any discretionary criteria for issuing a lobbying license. My understanding is that the criteria is fairly neutral and objective, similar to the “shall issue” state’s standards for issuing concealed carry permits.
Comment by Just Another Anon Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:52 pm
Again, Thomas is taking a very non-literalist approach to the constitution. He obviously has some issue reading the first four words of any sentence.
Justice Thomas wrote that citizens may not be required to explain to the government why they sought to exercise a constitutional right.
=We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need=
I wonder if he is aware of the FFL regulations or the many limitations he has supported for the 4th amendment. Sheesh, what a hypocrite.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:54 pm
== the State will have a hard time defending some of its laws and rules with no facts to back them up under “Strict Scrutiny”==
Tiered scrutiny (strict, intermediate, etc.) no longer applies following this ruling. Previously, if a law was not historically analogous to one in existence or intended when the Amendment was adopted, the State could try to further defend it by saying the balance of interests weighed in their favor, and that balance was determined under strict or intermediate or rational. The Court today said that the only thing that matters is whether hit is historically analogous. That could change a lot of previous arguments.
Comment by fs Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:55 pm
” … im on a bulldozer so typing from my phone but YES”
Too bad military spouses with professional licenses get such consideration.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 3:59 pm
Should be “don’t get such consideration” … oops!
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 4:06 pm
Anyone Remember
That’s a good idea IL should do that, accept any valid occupational certificate from a military spouse.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 4:22 pm
==Anyone— im on a bulldozer so typing from my phone but YES==
Just be careful you dont accidentally shoot yourself in the rear end while sitting on that bulldozer, Todd
Comment by low level Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 4:51 pm
This decision (like Heller) ignores both the clear language of the Constitution, the intentions of the majority of our Founders, and our nation’s history. Scalia and Thomas have been among our most activist, political, and interventionist Justices. We can argue about how valuable it is to reinterpret our Constitution as times change, but we should not forgive them for misrepresenting themselves to the public.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 5:49 pm
Let us not forget, 25 states have now passed Constitutional Carry, no permit needed.
Comment by Moved Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 6:42 pm
@Walker says it perfectly.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 7:35 pm
Heard AFSCME halted the use of contract labor to expedite long delayed concealed carry permits. Only in Illinois can public employee unions greed threaten reasonable gun regulations.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 23, 22 @ 9:54 pm
47 — It’s not a fetish, I have this thing about rights. And for the record, before Dobbs comes out, I don’t think they should overturn Roe, not because it was right but for other reasons. But if they do, then the left will get to live under the same patchwork of laws gun owners have been — state by state.
I don’t think this is the high water mark, there is a lot more ground to take. And I don’t recall being for “unlimited gun access” but as gun guys have made concessions, and you side simply wants more, never finding a regulation or rule that infringes they won’t support, you actually push me and others towards a harder line of no compromise.
the beauty of our republic is it is not the tyranny of the majority or mob rule. We’ll find out in November what kinda country and government were are going to have for the next two years. But I don’t see you guys finding 38 states to repeal the 2A.
As for my grandson, God I hope he grows up in a different version of what we live in today. But I think you and I have different visions of what that is. What was that saying about two wolves and a sheep. . .
Comment by Todd Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 8:20 am