TribLIVE

| USWorld

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Right to bear arms in public left in doubt

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By The Los Angeles Times
Monday, April 15, 2013, 6:15 p.m.
 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court left uncertain on Monday whether gun owners have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.

Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down a gun rights challenge to a New York law that strictly limits who can carry a gun on the street, leaving states and cities, at least for now, with broad authority to regulate guns outside of the home.

In a pair of decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington and Chicago that prohibited all private possession of handguns. However, the justices did not address whether the Second Amendment also protected gun owners who want to carry a weapon in public.

Most states allow law-abiding gun owners to obtain a “concealed carry” permit.

However, at least seven states, including New York, California and Illinois, have laws on the books that make it difficult or nearly impossible for gun owners to obtain a permit that allows them to be armed in public.

Those laws are under challenge in the lower courts.

In December, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down the Illinois law as violating the Second Amendment. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has pending several Second Amendment challenges to the laws by which California counties deny most “concealed carry” permits.

To obtain a “concealed carry” permit, New Yorkers must convince a county official that they have a “special need for protection” that goes beyond living or working in a high-crime area.

Only about one-tenth of 1 percent of New Yorkers have concealed carry permits, compared with more than 6 percent in the neighboring states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania, the court was told.

Several gun owners who were denied a “concealed carry” permit sued, arguing they had a Second Amendment right to carry a gun for self-defense.

Rather than hear their appeal, the high court let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court that held states have the authority to decide the issue.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the decision keeps in place the state's “sensible and effective regulations of concealed handguns. This is a victory for families across New York who are rightly concerned about the scourge of gun violence.”

The court's refusal to hear an appeal does not set a legal precedent.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Nation

  1. Police try to see if man killed by escort was linked to crimes against women
  2. Nuke arms program gets 4-star leadership
  3. National Security Agency to stop looking at old telephone records
  4. El Niño helps, harms economies
  5. Oklahoma court: Ten Commandments monument at Capitol must go
  6. Boy Scouts of America votes to end controversial ban on openly gay leaders
  7. House Benghazi panel says State Department to hand over documents Tuesday
  8. Republicans seek firing of IRS chief in feud over missing emails
  9. House, Senate clash over highway funds before Friday deadline
  10. Outside attorneys to help investigate Bland death in Texas jail
  11. Lawyers: Immigrant mothers coerced to wear ankle monitors in Texas