Supreme Court majority skeptical of New York law that limits carrying handguns in public

WASHINGTON – A majority of the Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it is concerned about a New York law that requires residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun in public, hinting at a possible expansion of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Over the course of two hours, the court's conservatives pushed back on lawyers for New York and the Biden administration who asserted that states and cities have a long history of regulating where Americans may carry guns for self-defense and that those long-standing rules justify the state's requirement.

More than a decade after the high court ruled Americans have an individual right to possess guns in their homes, the justices appeared poised to extend that reasoning beyond the front door – though the particulars of just how much deference to grant gun owners prompted a lively debate.

“Why isn't it good enough to say, ‘I live in a violent area, and I want to defend myself?’” asked Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who pressed New York for evidence that looser gun regulations for law-abiding citizens are a threat to public safety.

That kind of claim could be taken under consideration by licensing officials during an application, Barbara Underwood, the state's solicitor general responded.

"That's the real concern, isn't it, with any constitutional right," Kavanaugh asked. "If it's (at) the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right."

The justices wrestled with the notion that the right to carry a gun is more accessible in rural areas, such as portions of upstate New York, than in densely populated ones, such as New York City. The plaintiffs in the case, who live outside Albany, were permitted to carry guns for hunting and other outdoor activities.

"If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves, that's implicated when you're in a high-crime area," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "It's not implicated when you're out in the woods. ... How many muggings take place in the forest?"

Underwood said she wasn't sure about muggings but noted that licensing officials have pointed to rapes and robberies in deserted areas.

The court's liberals quizzed the plaintiffs on the extent to which states may regulate where people can carry guns and what impact their interpretation of the Second Amendment would have on long-standing regulations. They peppered the plaintiffs with hypotheticals about whether New York could ban handguns on the New York City subway or in Yankee Stadium. What about on college campuses or bars?

In cases where a permit allows someone to carry a gun for hunting, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said, "you're out with an intent to shoot, say, a deer or rabbit." In the self-defense context, he said, "you go shooting it around, and somebody gets killed."

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general who is representing the plaintiffs, responded that many other states, including those with large cities, have more permissive gun laws that make it easier for residents to obtain carry permits.

"This is not something where we're asking you to take some brave, new experiment that no jurisdiction in Anglo-American history has ever done," Clement said.

That line of argument drew criticism from Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who questioned whether easier access to guns hasn't played a role in increasing violence in dense cities such as Chicago, which has been experiencing a wave in crime.

"I mean, most people think that Chicago is, like, the world's worst city with respect to gun violence," Kagan said. "Chicago doesn't think that, but everybody else thinks it about Chicago."

The high court last waded into the gun debate in 2008 and 2010 in a pair of rulings that struck down a Washington, D.C., prohibition on handguns. The court ruled that individual Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The court left unresolved the question of whether the Second Amendment establishes a right to carry guns outside the home. Gun rights groups say the text of the Constitution demands that outcome. Opponents point to a long history of the government regulating the right, such as by blocking guns in schools and on aircraft.

More: Can New Yorkers carry guns? A 700-year-old law may inform Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision

More: Supreme Court poised to jump into Second Amendment disputes, as nation mourns mass shootings

At issue is a New York law that requires residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun – in other words, a need for a permit greater than the general public. Two upstate New York residents, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, sued when a county licensing official denied them the carry privileges they sought.

President Joe Biden's administration, which supports New York's position, said at least six other states have similar laws. The reach of the high court's decision in the case could extend further if the justices set a standard to guide lower courts as they review other gun laws.

Not only do conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority on the court but several of them had voiced frustration that lower courts gave too much leeway to local governments to justify gun laws on the basis of public safety. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas criticized those courts in a 2018 dissent for a "general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right."

But even conservatives acknowledge government has some ability to regulate gun ownership. In the court's majority opinion in 2008, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the right was "not unlimited" and pointed to a historical record that demonstrated "the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The question, then, is where to draw the line.

A federal district court in New York dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit in 2018, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court probably won't hand down a ruling in the case until next year.

"Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm," said Jason Ouimet, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. "We look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended."

Gun control groups framed the case as an "extremist" overreach by the NRA.

"We heard counsel for the NRA-affiliated plaintiffs issue a dangerous call to the Supreme Court’s conservatives to mandate a 'guns everywhere' policy at a time when more people than ever are dying from gun violence," said Hannah Shearer, litigation director for the Giffords Law Center.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Public carry? Supreme Court hints at opposition to New York gun law