Washington, D.C., June 23, 2022 - Today, Brady decries the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Kevin P. Bruen, which embraced the gun lobby’s argument that there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense, limiting how state governments can regulate firearms in public and protect public safety. This decision comes after high-profile mass shootings, combined with ongoing daily gun violence, have rocked the nation and ignited desperate calls for action to prevent gun violence from Americans of every party and political persuasion. The court’s actions will make such action more difficult and will assuredly result in more gun violence immediately.
Brady President Kris Brown shared:
“Since this case was argued in November, an estimated 28,118 people have died from gun violence. The Supreme Court’s opinion is dismissive of the lives and rights of the general public, with Justice Alito going so far as to refer to the mass shootings that horrify and traumatize our nation as irrelevant. It is not irrelevant that over 100 people die from gun violence every day and that the Court’s ruling today will make this crisis worse. The majority opinion has demonstrated that they do not care about what the majority of Americans want and support. This decision follows the lead of the gun lobby and cements an insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment that overrides the First Amendment and will lead to more guns in our public spaces and more violence.
The public must know that the court’s action does not and will not stop state and the federal government from enacting common-sense gun violence prevention laws. Brady, activists, survivors, and elected officials committed to saving lives will not be deterred. Following this ruling, it is even more urgent that the Senate pass the bipartisan bill before it without delay.”
Brady Chief Counsel Jonathan Lowy shared:
“In a stroke of the pen, the Supreme Court today has invented a supposed right to carry, virtually anywhere, loaded guns – to potentially shoot and kill other people. The Court has chosen to obstruct Americans from obtaining the common sense laws they want and need to protect their families and communities, a decision that defies centuries of gun regulation. As dangerous as the decision is, its legal reasoning is worse; the Court relies on alternative history, disregarding historical facts that are inconvenient for its policy agenda, and basically erases half of the Second Amendment’s text, and its purpose to protect well-regulated militia. This is extremist judicial activism at its worst, and Americans may die as a result of what the Court issued in the sanctity of its protected chambers. We can not let this dictate America’s future.”
About NYSRPA v. Bruen:
The Petitioners in this case, two individuals and the New York affiliate of the NRA — the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA), are challenging New York’s law requiring individuals to show “proper cause” to define the scope of a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public spaces. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this law following an identical challenge in 2012 and the majority of other federal Courts of Appeals found similar “good cause” restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Although the Petitioners in this case mischaracterize the law as a complete ban on ordinary citizens carrying handguns for self-defense, the Petitioners were granted licenses to carry handguns for hunting, target shooting, and in unpopulated areas for self-defense. One of the Petitioner’s licenses also allowed him to carry a handgun for self-defense while commuting to and from work. The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the denial of Petitioners' request for wholly unrestricted concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated their Second Amendment rights.
Petitioners in this case are seeking a right not just to carry guns in public, but a right to carry guns for use in armed confrontation where any individual, trained or untrained in the lawful use of deadly force, becomes an arbiter of deadly violence alongside state authorities. The Supreme Court heard arguments in this case on Wednesday, November 3, 2021.
“Alternate Facts, Dueling Realities, and the Second Amendment: On NYSRPA v. Bruen,” Jon Lowy, New York University Law Review
Brady has one powerful mission — to unite all Americans against gun violence. We work across Congress, the courts, and our communities with over 90 grassroots chapters, bringing together young and old, red and blue, and every shade of color to find common ground in common sense. In the spirit of our namesakes Jim and Sarah Brady, we have fought for over 45 years to take action, not sides, and we will not stop until this epidemic ends. It’s in our hands.