New York State Governor Kathy Hochul while speaking about her new gun control legislation, claimed that “we took swift and thoughtful action to keep New Yorkers safe…. we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” adding “our smart, sensible gun laws will go into effect as planned … on September 1.”
It seems once again even after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, we have a Governor with a politically motivated agenda that views firearms as unacceptable and Second Amendment rights as unnecessary. What is unacceptable here is a Governor who refuses to accept a Supreme Court ruling to ensure that any new firearm safety legislation, will not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding, before it is passed. Not so with Governor Hochul. State Assemblyman Andrew Goodell, R-Jamestown said the “rushed” nature of the legislation is the reason for the “unintended consequences” of the state’s new gun laws. “To give you an idea how rushed this legislation was, the governor called us back in the special session on Thursday at noon, and the bill had not been printed,” he said. “We didn’t get a copy of the bill until (Sept. 9) at 11 a.m. The bill wasn’t even printed until a day later, and then we began debate on the bill that afternoon. It was passed in late afternoon, leaving absolutely no time whatsoever for any public input or evaluation.” Seems these days it’s more important to politically side step a Second Amendment infringement issue of a Bill Of Rights Amendment than see it for what it is.
On Thursday June 23, 2022 the Supreme Court released it’s opinion.
The Supreme Court Held:
At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition justifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581. Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor, subject to a few late-in-time outliers, have American governments required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry arms in public. Klenosky, 75 App. Div., at 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The time has come to accept the Second Amendment as one of the Bill of Rights, not a second class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules that the Bill of Rights guarantees. Any gun law that prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms should no longer exist. Gun laws need to address the illegal use of firmarms, have a firm position on gun crime and carry serious penalties for those who break the law. We don’t need senseless gun control measures that will only infringe on the rights of the law-abiding, while advancing a politically motivated agenda that views firearms as unacceptable, and Second Amendment rights as unnecessary.