“多くの州は、制限する法律を可決することによって、ちょうど説明された銃の暴力の危険性のいくつかに対処しようとしました, さまざまな方法で, 誰が購入できるか, 運ぶ, またはさまざまな種類の銃器を使用する,” ブレイヤーは書いた. “The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer in his dissent in the 6-3 場合. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, [object Window], Neil Gorsich, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas made up the majority.
Thomas delivered the court’s majority opinion, と主張する “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” The New York law required an applicant to show “proper cause” for seeking a license, but the majority struck that down.
“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote.
しかしながら, Breyer said the U.S. deals with a massive amount of gun crimes, and that it is the domain of state legislatures to address that even if there are many lawful uses for firearms.
“The question before us concerns the extent to which the Second Amendment prevents democratically elected officials from enacting laws to address the serious problem of gun violence,” 彼は言った. “And yet the Court today purports to answer that question without discussing the nature or severity of that problem.”
“Balancing… lawful uses against the dangers of firearms is primarily the responsibility of elected bodies, such as legislatures,” Breyer added. “It requires consideration of facts, 統計学, expert opinions, predictive judgments, relevant values, and a host of other circumstances, which together make decisions about how, いつ, and where to regulate guns more appropriately legislative work.”
ブレイヤー, in his opinion, also criticizes a history-based approach taken by the majority, and argues that “legal restrictions on the public carriage of firearms” are not uncommon. Breyer also says the unique circumstances in major cities like ニューヨーク市 necessitate lawmakers to consider where it is or is not practical to allow guns.
“The historical examples of regulations similar to New York’s licensing regime are legion,” Breyer said. “Not all of these laws were identical to New York’s, but that is inevitable in an analysis that demands examination of seven centuries of history. At a minimum, the laws I have recounted resembled New York’s law, similarly restricting the right to publicly carry weapons and serving roughly similar purposes.”
Even under the 2008 Heller case that gives individuals a right to own firearms, Breyer said, there can be legitimate government regulations on that right.
“We are bound by Heller insofar as Heller interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense,” Breyer said. “But Heller recognized that that right was not without limits and could appropriately be subject to government regulation.”
ケース, which will likely be considered a landmark win for gun rights advocates, comes as Congress is likely to pass a bipartisan gun safety bill 今後数日間で.
That effort came about in the wake of several mass shootings, including one in Uvalde, テキサス, 殺した 19 children and two adults at an elementary school.