The U.S. Supreme Court decided many controversial cases in the last few weeks. One that perhaps did not get as much attention as it deserved was its 6-3 ruling that struck down a New York state law that restricted the right to carry a gun in public.
The court’s conservative justices rejected the New York law that required applicants to prove a specific reason to allow them to carry a gun in public.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ ruling observed, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
The ruling also produced an interesting column on The Washington Post website by three attorneys who work for the Bronx Defenders, a New York City non-profit that provides legal assistance for low-income residents.
The column had a viewpoint that was very different from others about the ruling, which tended to focus on the debate between individual gun rights vs. public safety. The authors claimed New York officials had been using the law to put minorities in prison, and they had some compelling evidence for this argument.
The attorneys wrote that, under the law rejected by the Supreme Court, possession of an unlicensed, loaded firearm was a “violent felony” that required a 3 1/2-year minimum sentence, even if the defendant didn’t display the gun or fire it.
Further, the invalidated law said a gun could be considered loaded even if it really wasn’t — for example, if the ammunition was in the same room as the illegal weapon. And if officers found an unlicensed firearm in a car carrying several people, all of them could be charged with illegal possession even if one person admitted it was his.
The attorneys believe New York passed the law to keep minorities from having guns. Anyone who wanted to license a weapon had to fill out “an invasive application,” pay up to hundreds of dollars in fees and then be interviewed “to convince police officers, who made the ultimate determination, that the license was justified.”
Given that background, it’s easier to see why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Police officers or any other government officials certainly don’t get to decide who exercises their First Amendment free speech rights, to use just one obvious example.
Two justices noted in a concurring opinion that the ruling does not question gun-carry restrictions set down by many states, such as fingerprinting, a background check or a firearms training requirement.
The problem, of course, is that state and federal laws — as well as theft — allow guns into the hands of some dangerous people, such as the person accused of killing seven people at a Fourth of July parade in suburban Chicago on Monday. As these shootings pile up with urban violence that is getting worse, the nation must reasonably balance gun rights with public safety. That will be a difficult task.
— Jack Ryan, McComb Enterprise-Journal
