Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0turns away challenge to New York state gun limits
Supreme Court turns away challenge to New York state gun limits
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Law banning gun sales for adults under 21 unconstitutional: Appeals court
US Appeals Court rules federal law banning gun sales to adults under 21 unconstitutional, citing Second Amendment rights.
Straight Arrow News
The U.S. Supreme Court turned away on Monday a challenge to New York firearms restrictions adopted shortly after the justices struck down the Democratic state's previous limits on carrying concealed handguns in a 2022 landmark ruling that expanded gun rights.
The justices declined to hear an appeal by six New York residents who either have or are seeking a concealed-carry license of a lower court's decision that let the state enforce certain licensing requirements and restrictions in locations deemed "sensitive."
The dispute centered on New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act, a Democratic-backed measure adopted after the court's 2022 ruling that declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
That ruling also announced a stringent test that required gun laws to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" to comply with the Second Amendment. It was one of three key rulings by the Supreme Court since 2008 that have broadened gun rights in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence, including frequent mass shootings. The United States has the world's highest gun ownership rate.
New York's new law, passed in July 2022, defined a longstanding requirement for firearm license applicants to have "good moral character" as the judgment to use a firearm "in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others."
The law also made it a crime to carry a firearm in various "sensitive" locations, including government buildings, schools, healthcare facilities, theaters, bars, polling places and Manhattan's Times Square.
The six plaintiffs sued in federal court, challenging various aspects of the 2022 law.
U.S. Judge Glenn Suddaby in Syracuse, New York, blocked much of the law in 2022. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reversed Suddaby's decision in 2024.
The plaintiffs had asked the Supreme Court to take up the case to resolve an ongoing debate over whether courts, when searching for historical analogues for gun restrictions, should look solely at when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, or also 1868, when the 14th Amendment extended the Constitution's Bill of Rights – spanning its first 10 amendments – to the states.
The plaintiffs urged the court to look only at historical sources in 1791 and not later. The 2nd Circuit's focus "on mid-to-late 19th-century sources was outcome-determinative in this case," they said, because "no historical tradition" exists to justify the state's law.
The Supreme Court, despite dramatically expanding gun rights, has shown a willingness to allow some limits.
The justices, on March 26, upheld a regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns." In two rulings last year, they upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns but rejected a federal rule banning "bump stocks" - devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
27 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Was Never Coming Back. Then He Did.
After insisting again and again that they would not bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, Trump-administration officials flew the 29-year-old Maryland man back from El Salvador today to face a grand-jury criminal indictment in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia's return doesn't mean he can go free. He now faces federal charges for human trafficking, according to the indictment unsealed today, and the Trump administration will get its opportunity to prove what it has long alleged about Abrego Garcia's membership in the gang MS-13. Even if prosecutors fail to convict him, the government could attempt to deport him to a third country—just not back to El Salvador. But by bringing him back to the United States, the Trump administration has climbed down from the court-defying pedestal where Vice President J. D. Vance, the adviser Stephen Miller, and Cabinet officials perched for months, claiming that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, a mistake, and that he would never be allowed to set foot in the country again. Their obstinacy led to warnings of a constitutional crisis. Abrego Garcia's wife, a U.S. citizen, sued the government in March after he was deported to his native country in violation of a 2019 court order protecting him from being sent back to face likely harm. U.S. officials initially acknowledged that they'd made an 'administrative error,' then shrugged and said that the matter was out of their hands. White House officials remained dug in even as the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified to lawmakers last month. Now, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges, the administration can quiet the constitutional concerns about his due-process rights and lay out the evidence it claims to possess showing that he is not a benign sheet-metal worker and devoted father but a gang leader and human trafficker. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters that Abrego Garcia 'played a significant role in an alien-smuggling ring.' The criminal charges, filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, allege that Abrego Garcia participated in a nine-year conspiracy that moved thousands of people to destinations across the United States and totaled more than 100 trips. The indictment also accuses him of gun running and drug smuggling. According to ABC News, which first reported on Abrego Garcia's return and the trafficking charges, the chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville resigned after the indictment was filed. The attorney, Ben Schrader, declined to comment when I reached out to him this evening. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador in April and was allowed by the country's authorities to meet with Abrego Garcia, said in a statement that the administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights—and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said in the statement. 'The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' This is the second time in a week that Trump officials have relented on one of the cases in which federal judges ordered the government to bring back a deportee removed from the country without due process. A gay Guatemalan asylum seeker known in court documents as O.C.G., who was wrongly deported to Mexico, was allowed to return and pursue his protection claim on Wednesday. The Trump administration remains defiant elsewhere, however, holding a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti while it attempts to deport them to South Sudan. Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me the administration's decision to bring his client back is a sign that 'they were playing games with the court all along.' Standard legal procedure would entail filing criminal charges against an alleged perpetrator and convicting them prior to a deportation—not the other way around, as the Trump administration is now attempting, Sandoval-Mosenberg said. 'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after,' he said. 'This is an abuse of power, not justice. The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things.' After Abrego Garcia's return, government attorneys told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that they intend to file a motion to dismiss the case challenging his unlawful deportation. Abrego Garcia was stopped for speeding by Tennessee state troopers in December 2022 while driving a Chevy Suburban with nine male passengers, none of whom carried identification, according to the indictment. Abrego Garcia was cited for an expired license, but he was not arrested or charged with a crime, even though troopers flagged the incident as a potential trafficking case. Abrego Garcia told officers that he'd been sent by his employer to pick up the men for a construction job, and his family has said that he would sometimes drive workers between job sites. They have denied the government's claims that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member. Driving passengers for money wouldn't be a crime unless the government can prove that Abrego Garcia knew he was transporting passengers who were unlawfully present, Andrew Rankin, an immigration attorney in Memphis, told me. Participating in a criminal conspiracy to bring them across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the government alleges, would bring severer penalties. 'What did he know? Did he have actual knowledge? What was the discussion between each person and Abrego?' Rankin said. 'And if these people were in violation of the law, the government could offer immunity to testify against him.' The indictment identifies six unnamed co-conspirators and says that Abrego Garcia transported MS-13 gang members on the trips. One of the co-conspirators told investigators that Abrego Garcia 'abused some of the female undocumented aliens' and was ordered to stop because it was 'bad for business.' Rankin said it was highly unusual for the government to deport someone and then begin building a criminal indictment. 'Now that the government has had to essentially bend the knee to bring Mr. Abrego back, the government is upset, and they can't just let him go,' Rankin told me. 'They can't just let him out and just let him walk around like he did before.'
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Election observers at the OAS voice serious concerns about Mexico's contentious judicial elections
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Electoral watchdogs at the Organization of American States expressed concern Friday over the low turnout in Mexico's historic and contentious judicial elections, recommending that countries in the Americas not follow its path. In a report, the electoral mission said the June 1 election was 'extremely complex' and 'polarizing,' and was marked by a 'widespread lack of awareness' among voters about what they were voting for and who the thousands of candidates were. In Sunday's vote, Mexicans elected 881 federal judges and another 1,800 state judges as part of a complete overhaul of the judiciary. The process was carried out following a constitutional reform approved last year by a Congress with a ruling-party majority. The overhaul fueled protests and criticism within Mexico and by the American and Canadian governments, which warned of a potential loss of judicial independence and the politicization of justice in Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her mentor and architect of the overhaul, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed they want to root out corruption in the judiciary, which most Mexicans agree is broken. Mexico's electoral authority said this week that voter turnout was 13%, significantly lower than the 60% turnout in last year's general elections. In the Friday report, the OAS mission — led by former Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz Valenzuela — expressed concern over 'the low level of citizen participation' and noted that 'this is one of the lowest turnout levels in the region.' Observers also pointed to the 'high percentage' of null and unmarked ballots, which exceeded 10%. 'It's necessary to carry out a comprehensive reflection on the nature of the (electoral) process and how it was conducted,' the report concluded. The OAS's 16-member observation mission also raised concerns about the nine candidates elected to join Mexico's Supreme Court who 'were promoted in physical and digital 'cheat sheets.'' While parties were not allowed to advocate for candidates, pamphlets known as 'accordions' guiding voters on which candidates to vote for were widely distributed. Mexican electoral authorities investigated complaints against the ruling Morena party and other opposition groups that distributed the voter guides in communities across the capital and other cities in the weeks leading up to the vote. The agency also ordered that a website featuring a digital cheat sheet with Morena-aligned candidates for the Supreme Court and other top tribunals be taken down. OAS observers also noted that six of the nine candidates elected to the high court had been nominated by the government controlled by Morena, and the remaining three were justices appointed by López Obrador, 'which raises reasonable doubts about the autonomy and independence of the highest court in relation to the Executive.' Given the findings, the mission concluded that 'it does not recommend this model of judge selection be replicated in other countries in the region.' Despite the criticism, Sheinbaum praised the election this week, calling it a success. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With $122M spent, the 2025 governor's race is already New Jersey's most expensive
Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Candidates and outside groups have spent more than $122.5 million on this year's gubernatorial primary, a total greater than any other in state history and one that stands to rise in the race's closing days, the New Jersey Election Law Commission said Friday. The spending total includes $54.9 million from the candidates themselves and $67.7 million from outside groups. Between them, $14 million remained unspent, and that number could swell from late-arriving donations to independent expenditure groups, which face no contribution limits. Voting is underway and ends Tuesday. Spending totals for this campaign have already more than doubled those in every gubernatorial primary since at least the turn of the millennium and have outpaced even the most expensive gubernatorial general election. That November 2005 race between Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester cost about $98 million after adjustments to inflation, the commission said. This year's 11 gubernatorial candidates had about $6.7 million left in reserves on May 27, the last date covered by regular pre-election campaign finance disclosures. The commission credited the number of candidacies and a larger gubernatorial fund match for the increase. Candidates who meet fundraising and spending thresholds can receive up to $5.5 million in matching public dollars for the primary in exchange for observing an $8.7 million primary spending cap and participating in debates hosted by the commission. Five of the eight candidates have maxed out or nearly maxed out their matching funds. Of the $54.9 million spent by the candidates, Democrats Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and Rep. Mikie Sherrill lead the pack, with Fulop spending nearly $8.7 million and Sherrill shelling out $8.5 million as of May 27. Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2017 and 2021, spent $8 million, followed by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, at $7.9 million. Spending by outside groups is dominated by Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by an independent expenditure group linked to statewide teachers union the New Jersey Education Association. It is responsible for more than half of the outside spending in the race, with at least $37.5 million boosting Democrat Sean Spiller, the union's president. Spiller's own campaign has spent only $342,059. Spiller's Democratic rivals have seen less but still sizable support from independent expenditure groups. They have boosted Rep. Josh Gottheimer to the tune of $11.6 million; Fulop, $7.4 million; former state Sen. Steve Sweeney, $4.3 million; and Sherrill, $3.8 million. A group run in part by Trump ally Kellyanne Conway has spent $1.3 million supporting Ciattarelli's campaign. Gubernatorial totals far exceed fundraising and spending on this year's Assembly races (all 80 seats in the chamber are on the ballot this year). Not counting independent expenditures, Assembly candidates have raised nearly $26.3 million and spent about $15.4 million, the commission said. Most of that money, $20.8 million, has flowed to incumbents. Collectively, challengers have raised just under $5.5 million. The ratio is similarly split along party lines. Democratic candidates account for $21.6 million of the funds raised, while only $4.7 million went to Republicans. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
