Listen to this article

On Wednesday, US Supreme Court grabbed with whether restrictions on the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense pass constitutional caucus. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns with the discretion the regime grants to local licensing officers in deciding whether to approve applications from New Yorkers looking to carry their weapons in public for self-defense. Kavanaugh said, “That’s the real concern, isn’t it, with any constitutional right? If it’s the discretion of an individual officer, seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right”. The chief justice said that the 2^nd Amendment should be interpreted in the same manner as other constitutional rights and under New York’s rules. Justice Roberts said, “You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you would need a license to exercise that right I think is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights”.

However, a majority of the court seemed inclined to strike down the New York law. The justices suggested that there could be limits to the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, specifically when it comes to sensitive places or heavily populated areas. Roberts questioned whether a state or city can ban firearms on university campuses, in football stadiums, or places where alcohol is served. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether Times Square on New Year’s Eve could be subject to limitations on the right to carry in public. Point to be noted that New York’s concealed carry framework allows its residents to obtain a license to carry a firearm outside the home. But there must be a proper reason to carry a firearm, which state courts have said is a “special need for self-protection”.

Now, the gun rights groups hope the court’s ideological composition with a 6-3 conservative majority would make it more open to lifting government limits on carrying guns in public. Justice Clarence Thomas said implicitly in Underwood’s argument is that a strict rule governing carrying handguns outside the home is less necessary in more rural areas. Roberts pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision relied on the right to self-defense, which he said arises in more populated areas. Justice Samuel Alito suggested the need to carry a gun in public would be greater for a law-abiding person in Manhattan who works late and is required to commute home through high-crime areas. How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment? It doesn’t mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers”.