WASHINGTON – The capital of the nation, so often a backdrop to inaction, has rarely witnessed anything like this – two branches of government split in opposite directions with weapons, one of the most divisive issues in the country, in a single day.
At around 10pm on Thursday, the Senate passed a bipartisan arms control bill, which, however, has gradually become the most important weapon security measure in decades. Yet 12 hours earlier, the Supreme Court had launched a decisive, sharp guerrilla strike on gun rules, shaking national firearms policy to the right, perhaps for years.
The result was a monumental victory in the arms rights movement’s courts and a less significant but important legislative achievement for those seeking an answer to the recent massacres in Buffalo and Uwalde, Texas. There was growing confusion for the country about the direction of national weapons policy in the era of mass shootings, growing crime and a growing conservative push to expand arms rights and the scope of the Second Amendment.
“What a day,” said Adam Skags, chief counsel at the Giffords Law Center, the legal arm of the National Arms Security Group, set up by former attorney Gabriel Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who survived a 2011 shooting near Tucson.
“The Senate has finally reached a bipartisan consensus on these reforms, mainly because a bunch of Republican senators have heard from their constituents that something needs to be done,” he added. “Then the Supreme Court completely abducted everything with an interpretation of the right to bear arms, which is completely contrary to what Democrats, independents and even many Republicans wanted.
“Where is everything going from here?”
The court’s decision to repeal New York’s 100-year-old law restricting the carrying of weapons in public is the largest decision on firearms in years and only the court’s second important statement on the right to hold and carry a weapon.
According to the majority, Judge Clarence Thomas compared the restrictions on the rights under the Second Amendment to the restrictions on the right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment and the right of every American under the Sixth Amendment to “stand up to witnesses against him.” Critics were quick to point out that exercising these rights rarely involves the use of deadly force.
In the short term, the government is forcing five states, including New York, California and New Jersey, to drastically loosen their gun regulations.
In his extensive 130-page opinion, Judge Thomas wrote that the states could continue to ban weapons in “sensitive” public places – such as schools, courts and government buildings – but warned that local authorities should not categorize such places too broadly. .
“Simply put,” he added, “there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare Manhattan Island a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is overcrowded and generally protected by the New York Police Department.”
Although the majority’s decision does not explicitly affect the federal regulation of firearms, Justice Department lawyers are assessing the impact of the decision on their procedures. Some restrictions, they say, such as carrying weapons in court, will remain in place, but they are less certain of restrictions at post offices, museums and other facilities where weapons are currently banned.
Although the court was expected to weaken state gun laws, the moment came as a slight surprise: most Capitol and White House aides believed in the long-awaited New York State Rifle & Pistol Association ruling against Bruen will come next week as the court approaches the code of a term that is expected to be limited to the end of Roe v. Wade.
This week, the focus was directly on the Senate, which managed to reach a hard-won compromise on a package of arms regulations that would expand checks on potential arms buyers under the age of 21 and include serious dating partners in a law that does not allow domestic abusers to buy firearms and provide federal money for state “red flag” laws that allow weapons to be temporarily confiscated from people considered dangerous.
With the adoption of the measure on Thursday evening, June 23, 2022, it became one of the most important days in the turbulent centuries-old history of America with weapons.
The Supreme Court ruling – condemned by Lisa Monaco, a Justice Department official, as “deeply disappointing” while challenging New York Mayor Eric Adams vowed to prevent the city from becoming a “wild, wild West” – is being considered. helping Democrats argue the passage of the bill in the Senate.
“The landscape for gun violence prevention laws today is different than it was 48 hours ago, “said Chris Brown, president of Brady, one of the country’s oldest gun control groups. “This decision only underscored the urgent need for the Senate to act and pass this bill.
Weapons organizations, for their part, hailed the decision as a necessary constitutional review against growing restrictions imposed in New York, California, New Jersey and other states. “The court has made it clear that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is not limited to the home,” said Larry Keane, a senior official in the largest trade group in the arms industry, the National Shooting Foundation.
The decision gave some potential political cover to Senate Republicans, who backed a gun control bill that won its main Republican sponsor, Sen. John Cornin of Texas, numerous boos from gun rights activists at the state party’s rally last week.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, followed a statement applauding the bipartisanship of the legislation with fierce protection of gun rights after the decision.
“Great day for the second amendment,” he wrote. “The Supreme Court ruling is another example of reinforcing the concept that the Second Amendment is an individual right rooted in the ability to protect oneself and property.