Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

New York has long been the source of major gun control disputes. In fact, these cases have led to some of the most cases Significant victories for gun rights defenders. This includes possible damages in the Supreme Court A major gun rights case. Now, in response to recent shootings, New York has banned people under the age of 21 from buying or owning a semi-automatic rifle. In a supermarket in Buffalo The culprit was 18 years old. There is growing support for such age restrictions after the Uvalde massacre, even if a similar restriction was lifted in California. An appeal is underway in this case.

The Senate-based age limit bill was passed by the Senate for 43 to 20 years. There is now an age requirement to have a handgun.

The age limit may be unconstitutional in California despite the ruling. Obviously, there will be challenges, and the courts are asking why this individual right should be taken away from 18 to 20 year olds. Likewise, they will ask why high-caliber weapons are not subject to such age restrictions. These are questions of good faith, and the courts must resolve whether the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons justifies the need to delay such a sale or ownership.

It is often said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. Clearly true. Even the first amendment is not absolute. This point has been made many times by President Joe Biden:

“At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. That’s just – it was Judge Scalia who wrote, and I quote, “Like many rights, the right – the Second Amendment – by – the rights granted by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is not unlimited. It never has been. There have always been restrictions on the weapons you can have in the United States.

The president has often accompanied this debate A statement that is clearly incorrect On the prohibition of some weapons during the adoption of the Second Amendment.

The reference may be to this Quote from Scalia From Colombia vs. Heller Decision:

In our view, both on the basis of the text and on the basis of history, there is no doubt that the Second Amendment granted the individual the right to possess and carry a weapon. Of course, this right was not unlimited, just as there was no right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment. For example, the United States vs. Williams, 553 US 285, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). Therefore, we do not read the second amendment to protect the right of citizens to bear arms any type From the confrontation, as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak Any goal

Scalia did not say there was a ban on cannons or other weapons at the time of passage. Instead, he noted that there are historically rules for guns, and specifically suggested that there may be restrictions on guns being allowed in “sensitive areas”:

Like many rights, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not unlimited. From Blackstone to nineteenth-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right is not the right to possess and carry any weapon in any way or for any purpose. See, For example, Sheldon In 5 Bloom 346; Ravel 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, most nineteenth-century courts to consider this question held that the prohibition of carrying secret weapons under the Second Amendment or similar government regulations was legal. See, For example, the state against Chandler5 La. Ann., At 489-490; Nun v. State, 1 Ga., At 251; Refer to 2 Kent * 340, n in general. 2 Blackstone American Students 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not make a comprehensive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment today, we do not think that anything should be questioned about the long-term prohibition of firearms by criminals and the mentally ill or the laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms. Firearms in sensitive locations such as schools and government buildings or laws that establish the terms and conditions for the commercial sale of firearms.

The court also ruled هلر That, while some provisions may be upheld, “the enactment of the Constitution necessarily removes certain policy choices from the table.”

New York law can provide an important test of the external boundaries of this right after a court ruling on a suspended case. However, we are all waiting to see if the court will clarify the range of motion allowed under the Second Amendment.

Gun rights advocates have long opposed the use of a single line هلر By lower courts to uphold a set of gun controls: “We do not think there should be any doubt about the long-term ban on firearms by criminals and the mentally ill or the ban on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools. “And government buildings or laws that establish the terms and conditions for the commercial sale of firearms.”

New York law falls into the category of “terms and conditions of commercial arms sales.” The validity of that law may depend on the sentence in the next few weeks New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. While this does not address this type of restriction on rifles, it may provide a provision that clarifies how much freedom the Second Amendment provides in such circumstances.

In any case, it is likely that New York will once again be the main jurisdiction in the next round of gun control lawsuits.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.