Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Gun Owners of America
@GunOwners
Victory for the Second Amendment! “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Image
10:38 AM · Jun 23, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

Election Wizard
@ElectionWiz
JUSTICE THOMAS: "Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry."
10:45 AM · Jun 23, 2022·Twitter Web App


Thomas writes, that the government must show that a gun regulation "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." He adds that requiring the government to meet such a showing "accords with how we protect other constitutional rights."
10:38 AM · Jun 23, 2022·Twitter Web App

3Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)
K AVANAUGH, J., concurring
Second, as Heller and McDonald established and the
Court today again explains, the Second Amendment “is nei-
ther a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank
check.” Ante, at 21. Properly interpreted, the Second
Amendment allows a “variety” of gun regulations. Heller,
554 U. S., at 636. As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion for
the Court in Heller, and J USTICE ALITO reiterated in rele-
vant part in the principal opinion in McDonald:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone
through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . .
[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt
on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of fire-
arms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. [Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively
lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list
does not purport to be exhaustive.]
“We also recognize another important limitation on
the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we
have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected
were those in common use at the time. We think that
limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual
weapons.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 626−627, and n. 26 (ci-
tations and quotation marks omitted); see also McDon-
ald, 561 U. S., at 786 (plurality opinion)

Klingon00 wrote:This is welcome news indeed.

It bothers me that there are SC Justices that will refuse to stand up for the constitution no matter what and others that appear to do so only begrudgingly.

docachna wrote:No doubt the other "may issue" states will distinguish THEIR statutes from New York's statute in Bruen, and it will take extended litigation to get any of the lefty states to fall in line. But it's a great start.

In Washington, the Justice Department said, "We respectfully disagree with the Court's conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York's reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities."

The court rejected a two-part test that many lower courts have used to review challenges to gun-control measures. That test looked first at whether a restriction regulates conduct protected by the original scope of the Second Amendment and then, if so, whether the restriction is fine-tuned to advance a significant public interest. Instead, Thomas wrote, if “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

After reviewing nearly seven centuries’ worth of historical sources, beginning in the 1200s and going through the early 1900s, Thomas concluded that although U.S. history has at times placed some “well-defined restrictions” on the right to carry firearms in public, there was no tradition of a broad prohibition on carrying commonly used guns in public for self-defense. And with rare exceptions, Thomas added, there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, Thomas concluded, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

In a statement released by the White House, President Joe Biden said that he was “deeply disappointed” by Thursday’s ruling, which he described as contrary to “both commonsense and the Constitution.”

But the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional," and that this requirement isn't limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition" or "[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years." It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant's proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing "law-abiding citizens").

Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction." [Emphasis added.]

As to how law enforcement is to figure out such matters, the AG's office has some advice: Among other things,

As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant's moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant's character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant's character. [Emphasis added.]

We are blessed to have represented before the Supreme Court a wide variety of clients, from large corporations and religious orders to criminal defendants and Native American groups. After we prevail before the high court, we generally receive a round of congratulatory messages from law-firm colleagues for a job well done, especially when we have helped our clients vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights.

This time around, we received a very different message from our law firm. Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.

This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client. What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. Those who object to the representation are thus taking issue with the Constitution as interpreted by a majority of the high court.

Our decision, then, has little to do with the issues in this case and everything to do with the underlying principle. We would make the same choice for any of our clients.

Bruenor wrote:

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition"