“States could not altogether prohibit the public carry of arms protected by the Second Amendment . . .”
The Court’s ruling finding the NY carry law unconstitutional does not prohibit states from regulating the carry of firearms. States may still require a person to have a license to carry a firearm for self-defense. The Supreme Court instead has essentially ruled that a state may not prevent a person from carrying a firearm because they do not have a special reason for doing so, and that carrying a firearm for lawful self-defense is a legitimate reason to be permitted to carry. States must respect the rights granted under the Second Amendment just as they must respect every other constitutional right. While the right is not unlimited, it must not be restricted simply because an individual can’t show that they have a special need for it. After an analysis of historical restrictions on the right to bear arms, the court stated that:
The historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation, but none of these limitations on the right to bear arms operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose.
It is clear that public carry of firearms is still “subject to reasonable regulation.” While Justices in the dissent did state that this case may be used to overturn many other regulations, it does not appear that the majority ruling actually prevents states from regulating the carry of firearms, as long as the regulations are reasonable. This means that states may still require a permit or license to carry in public, and they may still prohibit open carry (Watch our webinar on Florida’s CWFL). This decision also does nothing to limit the right of private property owners to prohibit firearms on their property.