The US Supreme Court has declared for the first time that the US constitution protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defence, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a country deeply divided over how to address firearms violence.
The 6-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority and progressive justices in dissent, struck down New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home.
The court found that the law, enacted in 1913, violated a person’s right to “keep and bear arms” under the US constitution’s Second Amendment.
The ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, declared that the constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defence outside the home”.
Thomas added: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
The ruling could undermine similar restrictions in other states and imperil other types of state and local firearms restrictions across the US.
Gun rights, held dear by many in the US and promised by its 18th century founders, are a contentious issue in a country with high levels of firearms violence including numerous mass shootings.
US President Joe Biden, who has called gun violence a national embarrassment, condemned the decision.
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” Biden said.
“In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society – not less – to protect our fellow Americans.”
The New York restriction is unconstitutional because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defence needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” Thomas added.
Progressive Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had expanded gun rights without wrestling with the “nature or severity” of firearms violence.
“I fear that the court’s interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves states without the ability to address them,” Breyer wrote.
The justices overturned a lower court ruling throwing out a challenge to the law by two gun owners and the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, an influential gun rights group.
The decision represents the court’s most important statement on gun rights in more than a decade.
The court in 2008 recognised for the first time an individual’s right to keep guns at home for self-defence in a case from the District of Columbia, and in 2010 applied that right to the states.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, called the ruling “absolutely shocking”.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams said officials will review licensing policies and how sensitive locations are defined, adding that “we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West”.
Under the New York law’s “proper cause” requirement, applicants seeking an unrestricted concealed carry permits must convince a state firearms licensing officer of an actual, rather than speculative, need for self-defence.
Officials could also grant licences restricted to certain activities, such as hunting or target practice.
The ruling said that New York’s concealed firearm regime is at odds with the text and history of the Second Amendment and how gun rights were protected throughout US history.
The ruling will affect at least six states including New York, as well as the District of Columbia, that empower officials to decide whether people can carry concealed handguns in public even if they pass criteria such as criminal background checks.
Three other states, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, also give officials some discretion, according to the ruling.
The ruling acknowledged that states can prohibit guns in “sensitive places” and that such prohibitions can likely go beyond what was historically considered a sensitive place, such as courthouses and legislative buildings.
Thomas wrote that courts “can use analogies to those historical regulations” of sensitive places.
But Breyer asked: “So where does that leave the many locations in a modern city with no obvious 18th- or 19th-century analogue? What about subways, nightclubs, movie theatres and sports stadiums? The court does not say.”
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion said states can still impose requirements on people seeking licences to carry firearms including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health checks and firearms training classes.
In another concurring opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court has said “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess”.
