The biggest benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York State’s arduous restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms is that the right to do so would not be restricted to just the rich, famous, well-connected, or those who once wore the badge, but would be a right enjoyed by any law-abiding New York citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn New York State’s arduous restrictions on concealed carrying of firearms is not only beneficial for the rich, famous and well-connected but also means that any law-abiding citizen in New York would be able to do so. CNN Newsroom immediately after the news broke on Thursday, they decried the right to conceal carry outside the home being considered a “first-class right” along with free speech. They were also concerned about people carrying guns in Times Square.
“And we’re still reading through the opinion now, but the conservative majority here, guys, is really going back to this idea that Second Amendment has really become a second-class right,”Jessica Schneider pointed out in the hastily compiled report. “This is something that we’ve heard Justice Thomas say in opinions, we’ve heard him say it this public, Justice Alito as well, saying that they believe that the Second Amendment has become a second-class right.”
Schneider dropped Times Square’s first mention, hinting that it would result in more mass shootings.
This is also a country that has been suffering from gun violence and multiple mass shootings over the past few months.At oral arguments in New York, the attorney general raised concern about whether the law would apply to New York State as a whole. It could include New York City and New York State’s rural regions. The concern is that, if the law were to be struck down (which it was today), people might have more trouble concealing handguns in densely populated areas like Times Square.
Of course, the city dwellers at CNN couldn’t care less about the rights of those in rural upstate New York or even those who live in the crime-infested portions of the city.
Jason Carroll, the National correspondent was an embodiment of the sentiment. As he recited Democratic talking points by Eric Gonzales the liberal Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzales called him the ruling. “a nightmare for public safety.”
“[B]ecause of this ruling now, they are expecting suicides, domestic incidents to street crime, all of these things to rise as a result of this,”Carroll also added. And touting how radical liberal lawmakers in the state planned to use “every tool at this point at their disposal,” he boasted about the possible “roadblocks” they will “throw up” to stop their citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights:
Let’s see, how might this look? Maybe they will do it this way. To prevent them from applying for these kinds of permits, they may also create other obstacles. These permits could become more expensive. Perhaps you should do more background checks, or modify some of your training requirements in order get a firearm.
Again, they want to make the permits “cost-prohibitive” to keep this right exclusive to the elite.
Despite repeatedly admitting that they didn’t know what the opinion said because they were still reading it, that didn’t stop them from making wild accusations about what the ruling actually did. For instance, CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers suggested it wasn’t clear if Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, had allowed states to bar guns from certain locations such as “the subway, in stadiums, at public events, that sort of thing.”
Jeffrey Toobin (chief masturbation expert, and chief legal analysis) also moaned about it “the conservatives on the Supreme Court” viewing “the Second Amendment to be a first-class right like the First Amendment.”
He also claimed their goal was “to be able to carry guns anywhere, anytime without any sort of regulation by the government, Without background checks, without restrictions on where you can take a weapon, without restrictions on how you can carry a weapon.”
“Now, they haven’t gone that far yet,” he was forced to admit before adding, “but they are clearly moving in that direction.”
Stephen Gutowski, founder of The Reload reported that Justice Kavanaugh wrote concurrently with Chief Justice Robert in an opinion that background checks were not being reformed. “The pair said ‘shall-issue’ laws which require an applicant to go through training and a background check before receiving a permit to carry, but require all qualified applicants to be issued a permit instead of leaving the final decision up to state officials, are consistent with the Second Amendment,” he wrote.
For more outrageous takes based on poor to no understanding of the laws in play, they leaned on senior political analyst David Gergen, who asserted that the conservative justices had “endorsed” allowing gangs to skulk around Times Square with guns:
The notion that the court is a neutral entity. Now, I support the notion that in Times Square amid all the human reaction and potential for gangs and such forthPeople can carry concealed weapons easily. It’s quite amazing. You’re like “What, are you crazy?” in Times Square. That element is there, according to me.
Since David is either too thick to understand the law or is intentionally lying, let’s break it down. If someone can’t legally buy a gun, they can’t carry it concealed legally nor get the permit to do so. And if they bought a gun illegally, they’re likely to have been or would carry it illegally regardless of the ruling.
Gergen concluded his argument by saying that this decision would only add to national anxiety and claimed that it was “anti-democratic.”
And as they were nearing the end of the hour, co-host Poppy Harlow bemoaned the ruling for having “enormous implications” and “wiping away any distinction between having a gun in your home for self-defense as decided in Heller, and now carrying it outside of your home.”
This anti-Second Amendment and anti-average American tirade was possible thanks to lucrative sponsorships by Verizon and Whole Foods Market. They are linked to their contact information.
Below is the transcript. Click “expand to read:
June 23, 2022
JESSICASCHNEIDER : Although we are still going through the opinion right now, the majority of conservatives here is returning to the idea that the Second Amendment has become a second-class legal right.
We’ve seen Justice Thomas speak this in his opinions. Justice Alito has also said it publicly, stating that the Second Amendment is now a second-class constitutional right. And now in this particular opinion, they’re striking down this New York gun law.
This opinion is huge. We are currently reading it to determine if any changes have been made to the Second Amendment. New York will have this law struck down. There are five similar laws in other states. These will most likely not be in force.
This is also a country that has been suffering from gun violence and multiple mass shootings over the past few months. During oral arguments, the New York attorney general expressed concern that the law was applicable to all of New York State. This includes New York City and the rural areas. People would find it easier to conceal handguns in highly populated places such as Times Square, if the law was struck down.
It remains to be determined what the consequences will be. According to Governor Hochul, the Supreme Court will act as it does today and she and her colleagues will continue to push for another law. We’ll be reading the remainder of this opinion, to find out how broad it is, while we wait for the New York gun legislation to be struck down.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. Eric Adams (New York Mayor) stated just days ago that the effects — the adverse effect, he thought, would have on New York City’s police force.
Jeffrey Toobin is an iconic law, which has been in existence for over a century and was finally passed by the Supreme Court. How does this affect other gun safety laws across the country?
TOOBIN: A useful approach to understanding the Court’s approach to the Second Amendment is looking at the First Amendment. Because the United States has freedom of speech, you know we can say anything in this country under the First Amendment.
According to the Supreme Court’s conservatives, the Second Amendment is a First-Class right just like the First Amendment. The Second Amendment should allow you to have guns wherever you are without restriction.
Although they’re not yet at the top of their game, it is clear that they are moving in that direction. And, you know, we can’t separate this issue from what is going on in the world where, you know, we have a tremendous problem with gun violence in this country, we have mass shootings, we have 18- year-olds with access to AR-14s – 15s, and the Supreme Court is moving in the direction of saying the government cannot regulate that traffic at all.
SCIUTTO: It’s huge. It’s huge.
HARLOW Jennifer Rodgers also is here. Jason Carroll is also here.
Jennifer Rodgers to you. We don’t yet know the details of this opinion. But it’s very important. Is there a carve out? Heller said in 2008 that the Second Amendment was not infinite and has limitations. The oral argument focused on sensitive areas, such as the subway. That is what will be the major part of this decision.
JENNIFERRODGERS: Yes. And, Poppy, these issues, law enforcement issues, public safety issue, have usually been left to the states and local governments because they’re the ones who know what the dangers are and what the citizens need to be protected. This is why we need to be patient.
Justice Thomas is referring to the language used by the state. The state must show that gun regulation conforms with national history in firearm regulation. The question is, if you think back, how has it been traditionally that localities and states can regulate such areas, including whether there are particular public safety risks associated with a rise of gun violence in public places like the subway or stadiums?
This is the goal of both New York State’s government and those in other states.
HARLOW: Okay. Thank you.
Joan Biskupic: I understand that you are reading this. We’re also right there. Do we see the larger picture? What if the New York court changed the way this court evaluates Second Amendment rights after it struck down that law? If they make a significant change to the framework, it could mean that many gun laws already in force may be re-litigated.
JOAN BISKUPIC : I think it is more, Poppy. And that’s why I will tell you. This is what makes the difference between Clarence Thomas writing this opinion, and Antonin Scalia writing it while Anthony Kennedy was on the court.
The six-justice supermajority has made everything different. It’s so different because the ruling back in 2008 involved only handguns in the home for self-defense.
The Supreme Court is making this the first instance of extending that ruling beyond the street for concealed weapons. It also opens up the door to challenges to existing gun laws in the nation. Yes, it is bigger.
SCIUTTO – Jeffrey Toobin, will this make moot all the hard negotiations that we have been following on Capitol Hill over the years in order to pass gun safety regulations like the very modest one just passed on Capitol Hill, or about to be passed, we think?
TOOBIN – The only thing that it promises is that any gun regulation, including the one just approved by the senators will be challenged before a court. That is all there is to it. This extends the Second Amendment to its right. We don’t yet know if this completely removes any possibility of regulation.
It is still in draft form. There is a possibility that some red flag laws will still remain in effect after I have finished this. I find it difficult to believe that any type of regulation telling gun owners what guns they are allowed to carry or where they may carry them is going anywhere.
JASON CARROLL : The Brooklyn D.A. It’s the most perfect way to put it. [Coughs] Just came out with a statement just a short while ago, Eric Gonzales calling it a “nightmare for public safety.” Saying, because of this ruling now, they are expecting suicides, domestic incidents to street crime, all of these things to rise as a result of this, basically saying that they must meet this critical setback with every tool at this point at their disposal.
Jim now has to ask what tools they might have. New York’s governor as well as New York’s mayor have been working for this moment for some time. New York’s governor declared that she would do her best. It is therefore understandable that the governor of New York has a draft bill on her desk in order to overcome this setback.
Let’s see what some possible outcomes might be. They might try to put up roadblocks that prevent permit holders from getting the permits. These permits could become more costly, require deeper background checks or change some training requirements to be able to purchase a handgun.
This is a setback for law enforcement, it’s clear.
HARLOW – David Gergen.
Thomas’s opinion is notable given the length of time he held that the Second Amendment was regarded as a second class right. When you look at the opinion, page 23, “nothing in the Second Amendment,” he writes, “text draws a home public distinction with the respect to the right to keep or bear arms.”
The question now is what political consequences this has for you. We’ve already seen that more regulation on gun ownership is being proposed by public polling.
DAVID GERGEN : Yes. This is going to make for a surprising decision in two ways. The first is the fact that the court now supports the idea that in Times Square people could easily carry concealed weapons amidst the chaos and reaction of humans and gangs. It’s quite amazing. You’re like “What, are you crazy?” in Times Square. That element is there, according to me.
Secondly, the country didn’t see this coming. Although New York’s officials looked at the issue, it was not in the nation’s mind.
It will only add to the feeling that the Supreme Court is not in touch with modern realities. They are now on their own, in their own crusade. This comes as people worry about democracy’s strength and it will likely be viewed negatively by many.
SCIUTTO — A Supreme Court decision that has huge implications in this country’s gun rights, reaction to gun violence (including the one currently underway on Capitol Hill) and whether attempts to regulate guns, enhance or broaden safety measures, can be deemed legal. This has huge, immense implications for Poppy.
HARLOW. The court’s decision in Heller removing any distinction between guns in your house for self-defense and carrying them outside your home has huge implications. We will discuss it throughout the day on CNN.
Jim, as you know, this court has now changed the framework of how courts going forward have to look at gun rights and the Second Amendment, no longer the two-part framework, looking now at text and history, which means a lot of the current gun laws could be reheard and re-litigated –
HARLOW: — and examined. Your right.
This important news is truly breaking.