The momentous sentence overturns a New York law that set strict limits
The movement to intensify gun control in the United States, that these days are experiencing moments of hope in the face of a legislative agreement that for the first time in almost three decades is preparing to extend these controls, has received a tremendous vArapalo by the conservative majority Supreme Court. In a long-awaited decision, the six justices of that majority have laid down a new york state law that imposed strict limits to be able to carry arms, out of sight, out of the home, requiring “proper cause” and “good moral character” to obtain a license.
The implications of the sentence, in any case, affect the entire country, and not just states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii and Massachusetts that have laws similar to the New York centennial rule. Because the Supreme dominated by conservatives strengthen the supremacy of one originalist and omnipotent interpretation of the Second Amendment over other considerations.
It does so 14 years after recognizing in 2008 for the first time the right to have weapons at home for self-defense. And the decision falls like a cold water jug at a time when the country is still experiencing the shock of the recent lethal mass shootings at a school in Uvalde (Texas) and for racist reasons in a supermarket in Buffalo (New York). Also when numerous state and municipal authorities are trying to tighten restrictions on who can carry weapons to try to combat the increase in violence and crime with those weapons.
Related news
In the sentence, written by Judge Clarence Thomas, it is said that “the second and fourteenth amendment they protect the right of an individual to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home” and it is claimed that the New York law violates that right. In the opinion of dissent signed by progressive Justice Stephen Breyer, instead, highlights that “many states have tried to deal with some dangers of gun violence by passing laws that limit who can buy, carry or use firearms” and “the Court today imposes a severe burden on state efforts to do it”.