Did the United States Supreme Court just set a national precedent for concealed carry in public?
According to a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, that appears to be the case.
“Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,” Thomas wrote.
“The definition of ‘bear’ naturally encompasses public carry.”
The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN a New York gun-control law that required people to show “proper cause” to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. The vote is 6-3. https://t.co/jA2Gl7lTiG
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 23, 2022
The ruling was in regards to a New York state law dictating that, in order to receive a concealed carry permit, gun owners must show “proper cause.”
In a 6-3 decision, the court found the law to be in violation of the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.”
In the introduction to the majority opinion, Thomas writes “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense” and that such a rule applies “outside the home.”
Thomas goes on to note that it is “settled” that certain areas where carrying could be prohibited.
Some of these “sensitive places” include polling places and courthouses.
Courts can therefore apply this rule to craft certain modern regulations of firearms to “new and analogous sensitive places”
That being the case, New York state’s attempt to apply “sensitive-place” law to include all “places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available” was an overreach of power and breach of constitutional rights.
“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” Thomas wrote.
According to Thomas, the Second Amendment is not some “second-class right” determined by permits and other forms of government permission.
It is also not a right only to be exercised “after demonstrating to government officials some special needs.”
The right to bear arms in public for self-defense is a right in and of itself that cannot be encroached on by government officials.
If applied as general precedent — which all Supreme Court cases are — this ruling could very well open up the Second Amendment floodgates.
In even the most regulated Democrat-run cities, American citizens will maintain the right to defend themselves.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.