The Supreme Court by a 6 to 3 decision strikes down Hawaii’s regulations restricting concealed carry. In addition to Hawaii, the states of California, Maryland, and New York had similar laws. None of those four states were ever able to enforce those laws thanks to legal challenges. We had submitted an Amicus brief in the case along with the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and I also had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on this case.
.
Barrett in concurrence has this powerful zinger: “What if a State made it a crime to wear religious head garb (say, a hijab) onto private property open to the public without obtaining express authorization? Could that statute evade constitutional scrutiny? On Hawaii and the principal dissent’s logic, the answer is apparently yes: No one has the right to enter another’s property without permission, and the State has merely adjusted the default to require permission to be clear. But that is plainly wrong. Because the law regulates religious and expressive conduct, its enactment is state action that triggers First Amendment scrutiny.”
Gun control groups have been very upset by this ruling.
“I will not mince words: This deeply dangerous majority opinion privileges guns over everything and all people in society. It is eminently reasonable that visitors receive property owners’ permission to bring firearms onto their private property open to the public. Yet the court has manipulated a legal test of their own design to launch this attack on public safety and our freedom from gun violence. What’s more, they are thwarting the will of the people and the legislature. This common-sense law is what the people of Hawaii wanted, but the court has complete disregard for that community will. Ultimately, the court makes it clear that it cares little about the threat of gun violence posed to the American people,” said Kris Brown, President of Brady.
As to the fears of this ruling causing real dangers for society, note that only a few states were trying to have this type of restrictive regulation and the other states have clearly shown that people carrying guns in these places isn’t “deeply dangerous.”
0 Comments