New York mayor Eric Adams said we will not make this city a wild wild west after US Supreme Court order

The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a New York statute that restricted people from carrying concealed firearms in public for self-defence, ruling that the requirement that applicants for a concealed carry licence demonstrate a unique need for self-defence is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, overturned a lower court judgement that upheld New York’s 108-year-old statute limiting who can acquire a licence to carry a concealed firearm in public. Proponents of the initiative cautioned that if the Supreme Court rules against it, it may jeopardise gun laws in numerous states and lead to more weapons on city streets.

The ideologically divided court’s majority judgement was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that New York’s “property-cause requirement” hindered law-abiding residents from enjoying their Second Amendment right and that the state’s licencing regime is unconstitutional.

“The constitutional right to bear guns in public for self-defence is not a second-class right governed by a different set of regulations than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,” Thomas wrote. “We are aware of no other fundamental right that a person may enjoy only after demonstrating to government officials some unique need.” When it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion, the First Amendment does not work like that.

When it comes to a defendant’s right to face witnesses against him, this is not how the Sixth Amendment works. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to carrying a firearm in public for self-defence.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal side, acknowledged the growth in gun violence in the United States and the prevalence of firearms, and warned that states attempting to implement more rigorous firearms legislation will be “severely” burdened by the court’s judgement.

“When courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, in my opinion, for them to consider the real hazards and consequences of gun violence that motivate states to control weapons,” wrote Breyer. “The Second Circuit agreed, ruling that New York’s law does not violate the Second Amendment. That is something I would agree with.”

The decision comes on the heels of a succession of mass shootings from mid-May to early June that rocked the nation and prompted Congress to seek consensus on a legislative strategy to reduce gun violence. On May 14, a racist shooter opened fire at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, killing ten people.

Ten days later, a shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, killed 19 students and two instructors. Then, on June 1, four individuals were killed by gunfire at a medical building in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The decision is the first step toward expanding gun rights since the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the house for self-defence. The New York court battle was also the court’s largest Second Amendment case since its 2008 judgement and a 2010 rule that said the right to have a weapon in the house applies to states.

Gun owners hoped that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority would acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the freedom to carry a firearm in public.

In a concurring opinion supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted that the court’s ruling does not exclude states from establishing licencing requirements for carrying handguns and leaves in place current regimes in 43 states. Instead, it only affects stricter licencing standards in six states, including New York.

In a statement, President Biden expressed his “sad disappointment” with the ruling and urged states to modify their laws to reduce gun violence.

“This verdict goes against both common sense and the Constitution and should greatly concern us all,” he said.

The New York permitting legislation at issue dates back to 1913 and requires people seeking a licence to carry a pistol outside the home to demonstrate a “proper cause,” which state courts have defined as a “particular need for self-protection.”

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, the two plaintiffs in the case, both filed for carrying licences, but licencing authorities declined their applications because they failed to prove a proper reason to carry handguns in public.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams stated that the court’s decision will “increase the risk of gun violence for New Yorkers.” He promised a “full assessment” of the approach to identifying where carrying firearms is prohibited, as well as a review of the application procedure to ensure that only individuals who are competent can acquire a licence to carry.

“This decision may have created a new river feeding the sea of gun violence,” he continued, “but we will do everything we can to dam it.”

Former President Trump praised the court’s decision, writing on his Truth Social platform, “Elections have consequences.” I pledged to choose Judges and Justices who will defend the Constitution.

Today, the Supreme Court upheld all Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

In general, half of the states require a permit provided by the state in order to carry a concealed firearm in public, while around six additional states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — allow a person to carry a firearm in public only if they have a need to do so. Government officials in those half-dozen states have discretion in rejecting licences, even if the applicant meets the legislative conditions.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito criticized Breyer’s dissent for recounting recent mass shootings. “Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?” he wrote. “The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”

During oral arguments in November, New York officials and the Biden administration, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law, warned the justices that invalidating it could have a domino effect, jeopardising not only the states’ restrictions, but also others that limit public carry in places where people congregate, such as airports, arenas, churches, and schools.

Some justices expressed concern about the consequences of a wide ruling on limits imposed on public gathering areas. For example, Roberts wondered if a state or city might prohibit handguns in football stadiums or areas where alcohol is dispensed, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett inquired about prohibiting firearms in “sensitive sites,” such as Times Square on New Year’s Eve.