The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Supreme Court has final say on 2nd Amendment
Last week’s Supreme Court decision striking New York’s laws (and those of five additional states) that prevented residents from publicly carrying firearms without a license makes for interesting policy timing. In the 6-3 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen opinion, the majority of justices ruled that such state requirements violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
It’s been years since the court weighed in on gun rights and there have only been a handful of related court cases. But to have the decision made now among recent mass shootings and Congress deciding gun control measures should be of particular interest for court and congressional watchers.
In the Bruen case, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch had handgun licenses for hunting and target practice. But New York officials didn’t approve their self-defense permits because the gun owners didn’t demonstrate a special consideration for self-protection.
New York’s law required those carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense purposes need to demonstrate their reasons for doing so. Justices in the majority found states placing firearm restrictions to be too confining, similar to their 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
In Heller, the court struck down Washington, D.C.’s law restricting gun owners for self-defense purposes in their residences. But the justices only addressed what it meant to “keep” arms and not specific reasons to “bear” firearms.
Even though the Heller opinion offered restrictions in deemed “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings, several justices voiced concern that language remained too broad in defining where firearms could be carried. Dissenting justices in Bruen were also concerned with gun possession in general public places and that their colleagues failed to offer states ways to enforce such measures.
Interestingly, half of American states do not require gun permits for carrying firearms publicly and some require permits but do not expect gun owners to explain their reason. With so many states varying over firearm regulations, gun control remains a divisive public policy area and constitutional right.
While state and local governments have largely regulated guns, that’s partly because Congress has done little to advance legislation. This fractious reality is especially important as Congress debates gun reform proposals. Policy uniformity is key across the country in addition to the right to “bear arms.”
In Heller and now Bruen, the court reminded Americans — as well as Congress — that placing specific preventions on gun ownership is unconstitutional. State officials in New York and even Connecticut have already suggested furthering gun control reforms in light of the Bruen decision so policy responses are expected at the state and local levels.
Meanwhile Congress just approved the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which is a modest firearms regulation bill that passed the Senate 65-33 and House of Representatives 234-193 last week. It includes school security and mental health initiatives among other measures but limits background checks to those under 21 years old and does not ban assault weapons. Because our Senate requires a specific number of senators from both sides of the aisle to support legislative proposals, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is not as reform oriented as the Brady Bill, which was the last significant gun reform package to pass Congress in 1994. It required a waiting period for handgun purchases, criminal background checks and banned assault weapons.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court can and has shaped firearm regulations especially in this century. Even though several states placed limitations on gun ownership and Congress has tried (but rarely) approved gun reforms, the Bruen case is a reminder that the Supreme Court has the final say about what measures infringe the Second Amendment.