Joe Biden’s disappointment with the court ruling allowing the carrying of firearms in self-defense

In an important and controversial decision, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that there is a fundamental right to carrying a firearm out of the home in self-defense.

Conservative-majority court overturned a centennial New York State law which restricted the stealth carrying of guns in public only to those with “just cause”. Now, as the court ruled, no special reason is required to take them to the street. Anyone who owns a licensed pistol can take it to a public place without any problems.

The court’s decision comes at a time when the country is in shock after a wave of massacres that have multiplied in recent years and a few weeks after the massacre in a Buffalo supermarketthe state of New York, and another in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, with 19 deaths, most of them children.

The Court’s ruling is a devastating blow to the ambitions of the democratic sectors and the more progressive sectors of the country they tried to limit not only transportation but also the purchase of weaponsEspecially the semi-automatic ones.

Shortly after the decision was announced, President Joe Biden said yes “Deeply disappointed” it’s a statement. “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution and should affect us all deeply.”

The votes

“It’s a dark day in America,” tweeted Democratic Party leader Gavin Newsom.

The decision was made by the majority of 6 judges against 3. The ruling in favor of the ruling was written by Judge Clarence Thomas, the highest-ranking Conservative member of the Court. The three liberal judges disagreed.

The supreme court has a conservative majority. from the presidency of Donald Trump, who during his term managed to appoint three right-wing judges because two died and one resigned. Beyond his controversial tenure, Trump’s conservative legacy is reflected in the court for generations since the judges are for life.

With another controversial decision, the Court is also preparing to announce the annulment of the Roe vs. Wade, thatwhich guarantees the right to abortion, as revealed in a court draft weeks ago.

Thomas wrote that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a self-defense weapon outside the home.

“Since New York State only issues public transportation licenses when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the state licensing regime violates the ConstitutionTommaso wrote.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public in self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to a completely different set of rules than the other guarantees in the Charter of Rights,'” he wrote.

“To justify its regulation, the government cannot simply assume that regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that regulation it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation of this nation, “wrote Thomas.

“Only if a firearms regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition can a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment ‘unqualified command’,” he said.

The decision has an epochal significance. Beyond its most immediate impact in New York, it will spread to seven other stateshome to some 80 million Americans, who have a similar “proper cause” requirement on the covert transportation of weapons in public.

Most states have more lax rules on the transportation of weapons in public. Thirty-one states allow open transportation without a permit, and 21 allow covert transportation without a permit. In Texas or Oklahoma, for example, it is very common to see trucks with a shotgun hanging from the back, as well as walking into a bar and seeing consumers drinking beer with guns.

other states

Forty-three states require a covert transportation license, provided the owner of a firearm passes a background check and completes safety training.

The Court’s decision shows a hardening opinion to assess state arms restrictions and potentially opens the door to a wave of new legal challenges across the country.

Liberal judge Stephen Breyer, in a dissent reached by judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, opened his opinion by pointing to the record of 45,000 Americans killed by firearms in 2020.

“Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that restrict, in various ways, who can purchase, transport or use different types of firearms. Today’s court weighs heavily on the efforts of states to do soBreyer writes.

“Because I cannot agree with the court’s decision to overturn the New York law without allowing the discovery or development of any evidential records, without considering the compelling interest of the state to prevent gun violence and protect the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of their decision, respectfully disagree. “

Arms rights groups insist on law-abiding armed citizens it would pose no greater threat for public safety.

State officials said their licensing regime is critical to limiting the threat of gun violence in sensitive locations. Less restrictive covert transport regimes “would increase the number of firearms being transported to high-density locations,” New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood told court last year.

“The proliferation of weapons in the subway terrifies many people.”

PB