United States | Gun carrying becomes less regulated in seven states

(Washington) In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday morning that the 2^e and 14^e amendments to the US Constitution protect the right to carry a firearm both inside and outside the home.

Andre Duchesne
The Press

As a result, the Supreme Court invalidates a New York State law dating from 1913 by which it was considered a criminal act to possess a firearm without a license. New York law stated that an individual could obtain such a permit if he demonstrated a special need for self-protection.

In addition to New York, the decision has an immediate effect in six other states (California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island), all Democrats and where the rights to carry a firearm on oneself were restricted. It therefore becomes possible to see individuals appearing with a weapon on their belt in large cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles.

In his argument on behalf of the majority of the justices, all conservatives, magistrate Clarence Thomas said: “Nothing in the second amendment makes a distinction between the house or public places in matters of carrying weapons. »

“This decision severely limits the efforts of states to try to limit gun violence,” replied Judge Stephen Breyer on behalf of the three dissenting judges. He laments that the Court ruled on the issue “without considering the potentially life-threatening consequences of its decision”.

“It’s a major decision. Without a doubt, it is the most important decision of the Supreme Court and of all American arms courts since Heller. [District de Columbia c. Heller, 2008] says Rafael Jacob, researcher in residence at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at UQAM.

At the time, the Supreme Court decision, passed 5-4, recognized the right to own a firearm inside the home for self-defense. The judgment did not address the issue of wearing one outside of one’s home.

“What is announced this morning [jeudi] is more limited, but still important, because it gives an additional expansion to the constitutional recognition of the right to bear a weapon, continues Mr. Jacob. But it is more limited insofar as it is a question of regulations that do not affect all American states. »

Still possible to regulate

Unsurprisingly, the decision sparked a flood of diametrically opposed reactions in the United States.

“The NRA wins a victory! exclaimed the National Rifle Association on its Twitter account. “The Supreme Court has confirmed that the right to bear arms DOES NOT STOP AT THE HOME DOOR. »

Disappointment was palpable among supporters of tougher gun ownership rules. Starting with President Joe Biden, who said he was “deeply disappointed” in a statement.

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul called the decision “scandalous,” especially in the context of “national wake-up calls” following the shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, in Texas.

For his part, the Democratic Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, said he feared that the Supreme Court’s case law could fuel “a wave of gun violence”.

According to Rafael Jacob, political entities still retain the right to regulate firearms. “The Supreme Court ruled that the laws of the states concerned were too subjective,” he explains. States can continue to regulate the right to carry a gun in public, but the criteria will have to be very clear and more objective than those that currently exist. »

Senate votes to restrict access to guns

Thursday evening, the United States Senate passed a bipartisan bill by 65 votes to 33 to regulate the sale and possession of firearms without contravening the 2^e amendment of the Constitution. This amendment says that “A well-organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed”.

The bill, which has every chance of being validated in the House of Representatives this Friday, would make it possible to prohibit the sale of weapons to people representing a danger to themselves or others, to promote more checks criminal and psychological backgrounds of buyers aged 18 to 21, to ensure better control over the sale of illegal weapons and to improve mental health programs. The text remains far below the measures demanded by the country’s president, Joe Biden.

Finally, this Supreme Court decision comes as Parliament in Canada considers Bill C-21, which aims to prohibit the purchase, sale, transfer and importation of handguns. Ottawa is also considering making participation in the buy-back program for assault weapons now banned in the country mandatory.

With Agence France-Presse