For its part, the Senate adopted, a few hours later, a long -awaited bipartisan text, providing for additional controls on arms sales.
by
In the tormented history of firearms in the United States, Thursday, June 23, 2022 will remain engraved in capital letters. In one day, two news, completely opposed, emerged from Washington. The first originated in the Supreme Court. In a resounding decision, the conservative majority of the judges (six against three) censored New York State legislation which limited the port of handguns outside the home. The second was in the Congress. At the end of weeks of harsh negotiations, a bipartisan compromise, very rare in the Senate, allowed the passage of measures to strengthen control over arms sales, pending a final vote in the House, scheduled for Friday.
These two collision news are not of equal force. Admittedly, the text adopted in the Senate constitutes the beginning of a political response to the recent killings of Buffalo, in the State of New York, and the school of Uvalde, Texas, which moved public opinion. But the decision of the Supreme Court n ‘ is not a compromise. It is a stroke of a ram, even a revolution, which consecrates the principle of total freedom to carry a weapon in all places. “We do not know any other constitutional right than an individual can only exercise after having provided proof of a particular need to representatives of the public authorities”, writes Judge Clarence Thomas, who held the pen.
In an additional opinion, his colleague conservative Brett Kavanaugh, as well as the Chief Justice (President of the Court), John Roberts, wanted to underline the limits of this decision, as if they feared the magnitude of their own audacity. According to them, it would not call into question the principle of licenses required in 43 states to carry a weapon, and therefore compulsory checks of criminal records and psychiatric history. Simply that of a “valid reason” claimed in a few states to apply for a license.
Joe Biden “deeply disappointed”
But according to many experts, the court’s decision will have broader consequences. In his argument, Clarence Thomas denies the States the possibility of legislating on firearms according to empirical considerations, such as the crime rate, their degree of lethality, etc. He only admits the idea of sensitive areas excluding wearing weapons, such as schools, assemblies, courts or government buildings. The magistrate imposes as a condition on any restrictive legislation an analogy or a historical precedent, obviously impossible to find, for example in matters of weapons of war. Clarence Thomas thus opens the door, in the conservative states, to a questioning at first instance of all kinds of restrictions.
You have 54.57% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.