Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Preserving Second Amendment Rights

Amidst recent mass and school shootings, regulations and gun laws in the U.S. are now becoming an even more pressing and controversial topics between democrats and republicans.


Cindy Schultz

MIke Tommasone of Schenectady shows his viewpoint during a pro-Second Amendment and pro-gun national rally on Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013, at the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. (Cindy Schultz / Times Union)


Just today, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in the first Supreme Court ruling on a gun case since 2010, voting in favor of striking down New York gun laws which allowed additional requirements in order to conceal carry in public. New York was one of eight states which had chosen to implement these stricter gun policies. Many democrats have spoken out agreeing with President Biden when he said that striking down this bill was a “bad decision,” while republicans view this ruling as a major victory for the U.S. constitution.


While the media and larger news outlets are choosing to construe this story, stating that this decision made by the supreme court will allow for dangerous individuals to have easier access to guns, let’s take a deeper look into what the consequences of this decision really are.


The previous standards for attaining a conceal carry in New York were at odds with the second amendment, declaring that the desire to protect yourself, your family, or your property was not a justifiable reason to be approved for a conceal carry within the state.


Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, made a very compelling point when stating that, "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,"


Several conservative voices have spoken out on twitter, directing individuals to the importance of the constitution, as well as the common sense that leads us to conclude that criminals are not ones to obey gun laws in the first place. Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk tweeted earlier this morning that, "The Constitution was not written for the times, it was written to stand the test of times."


Judge Jeanine Pirro, who began her career as a Westchester County Court judge in 1990, is very well versed in the law, American history, and American politics, also voiced her excitement to twitter stating, "Hallelujah! The Supreme Court got it right!"

The United States Supreme Court Building


It is important to note what many of those on the left are choosing to ignore: the decision made by the supreme court does not limit a state’s right to require background checks, fingerprinting, as well as request the criminal record for any individual wishing to obtain a conceal carry, but simply requires that the desire to protect oneself with a firearm be listed as a legitimate reason to do so; as has been the interpretation of the constitution for centuries. It is too soon to tell what this decision means for gun laws in the future, and if this will lead to certain states making the choice to become more strict with their gun laws, or if it will pave the way for the American people to have the opportunity to take advantage of their second amendment right more freely.




12 views0 comments