Let Freedom Ring! Finally a SCOTUS with a sac willing to take on tough decisions. Can't wait for the rest of this terms decisions.Court said:
"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."
This may have opened the door to nation wide constitutional carry
I'm not a lawyer but I think you will go to a "shall issue" where you still have to apply but now the burden of proof is on them to show why you shouldn't be able to carry.I currently live in NY, I just want a lawyer to decipher all of this and let me know if I still need to apply for a license or if it is now like my home state (VT) and I don't need any licenses or permits.
If it wasn't for some footnotes that the Court put in the opinion saying this doesn't invalidate "shall issue" licensing, I'd argue that this was an opinion for constitutional carry. The colonies didn't required licenses. And no other enumerated constitutional right requires a government license.The ruling confirms that it is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside one's home. It will be interesting to see the implications of this for non-residents visiting liberal states where that individual's home state permit is not recognized. Based on this ruling, why shouldn't state carry permits be recognized similar to state driver's licenses? For emphasis, we're dealing with the constitutional right to carry firearms in public places.