A majority of Supreme Court justices indicated Wednesday that they believe Americans generally have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense and that a New York law requiring special justification for getting such a permit is too restrictive.
2021 Election: Complete coverage and analysis ArrowRight
But it was unclear from a two-hour argument in the case how much more the court was willing to do to clarify the Second Amendment. Several expressed concern about allowing those with concealed weapons in sensitive areas, such as stadiums, crowded public events or places were alcohol is served.
The court’s six conservative justices expressed varying levels of support for the two individuals and the National Rifle Association affiliate challenging New York’s requirement, enacted more than a century ago, that says those who want to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”
See more from the justices’ spirited discussion of New York’s gun law
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the conservative member of the court thought least eager to want to weigh in on state and local gun control measures, nonetheless said New York’s law seemed at odds with a constitutional right.
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
“The idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights,” Roberts said.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was more direct: “Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself?”
The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment bestowed an individual the right to keep a gun in the home for personal defense rather than related to military service.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck a law that severely restricted gun ownership, but answered only part of what it means to “keep and bear arms.”
Story continues below advertisement
But it is not until now that the court has taken up the question of what it means to “bear” arms.
A ruling against New York would have consequences for at least a half dozen states with similar laws.
Advertisement
Washington lawyer Paul D. Clement said the court should look at the experiences of the dozens of other states that do things differently. State laws saying that permits “shall” be issued to qualified applicants are much more common, he said, and cover some of the nation’s biggest cities.
He faced tough questioning from the court’s liberal justices. Justice Stephen G. Breyer said states have a reason to worry about “gun-related chaos” that could result from the proliferation of firearms in public places.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said history shows that states have traditionally had the ability to regulate the carrying of weapons.
Story continues below advertisement
Justice Elena Kagan pushed Clement on whether such a right extends everywhere — on the New York City subway for instance.
She was joined there by Roberts, who wondered about football stadiums, university campuses or places that serve alcohol. Justice Amy Coney Barrett mentioned Times Square on New Year’s Eve.
In battle at Supreme Court over N.Y. gun law, a surprising split among conservatives
Clement tried to avoid specifics, but said generally states do have a right to ban guns from sensitive places.
Advertisement
The two people challenging the law — Robert Nash and Brandon Koch — have licenses to carry handguns for hunting and target practice. But New York authorities denied their requests for “unrestricted” licenses for self-defense because officials said they could not show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”
Story continues below advertisement
During the two-year period of 2018 and 2019, at least 65 percent of applicants in New York were approved for an “unrestricted” license, according to a state analysis of records submitted to the court.
But New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood conceded the state was worried about issuing such permits in densely populated areas.
Roberts said that was a paradox, because that would seem to rule out urban, high-crime areas.
“How many muggings take place in the forest?” he asked.
Advertisement
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed a similar line of questioning, saying the law only hurts “law-abiding” citizens who are “scared to death” when working late at night, for instance.
Story continues below advertisement
“There are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now. Aren’t there?” Alito asked. “All these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed.”
Underwood responded, “The idea of proliferating arms on the subway is precisely, I think, what terrifies a great many people. The other point is that proliferating guns in a populated area where there is law enforcement jeopardizes law enforcement, because when they come, they now can’t tell who’s shooting and the shooting proliferates and accelerates.”
Advertisement
Four of the court’s conservatives, Clarence Thomas, Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — have shown impatience with the high court’s reluctance to jump back into the gun debate. In 2017, Thomas and Gorsuch said the court was treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.”
Story continues below advertisement
Retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was not anxious to revisit the issue, and Roberts has not joined fellow conservatives in their criticism.
Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professors who has written extensively about the Second Amendment, said a majority of justices “appeared ready to declare New York’s restrictions on concealed carry unconstitutional.”
But he said the “question is how New York can respond if it loses. New York will almost certainly have to revise its concealed carry laws to allow many more people to have guns on city streets. The hearing did, however, suggest how New York can continue to restrict concealed carry in its major cities.”
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
The two newest justices could be important to the breadth of the decision.
As appeals court judges, Kavanaugh and Barrett expressed support in their writings for examining the historical record when assessing the viability of gun restrictions, and making the argument that the restrictions in question were unconstitutional.
Two years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Barrett issued a lengthy dissent in which she argued that only those shown to be dangerous may be stripped of their Second Amendment rights. She said a flat ban on any felon owning guns was wrong.
The “best historical support for a legislative power” to restrict gun rights would be “founding-era laws explicitly imposing — or explicitly authorizing the legislature to impose” such restrictions, she wrote.
Story continues below advertisement
While on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh dissented in a decision that upheld D.C.’s gun registration requirement and the city’s ban on ownership of semiautomatic rifles.
Advertisement
Kavanaugh said the “clear message” from Scalia’s Heller opinion is that the Constitution’s text, history and tradition guide analysis of gun laws and regulations — rather than a legal test in which courts weigh whether a law is necessary to serve the government’s interest in preventing death and crime.
The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Tom Jackman and Mariana Alfaro contributed to this report.