Commentary on Supreme Court's NY Gun Law Decision

The news of the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting New York’s gun safety law struck me because I was saddened to see the literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution unable to account for modern day applications.

My friend, K, whose father was shot dead in a gun accident a week before Father's Day this year, has shocked my previous belief in the literal reading of the 2nd Amendment. Facing enormous financial pressure from losing the main breadwinner of her family, K and her family couldn’t even give her father a decent funeral. Arguments about the legality of the 2nd Amendment pale in comparison to the tragic loss of K and every American family whose dear ones left them because of overwhelmingly high rates of gun violence in the United States.

Some gun rights advocates, as cited in the news article below, argue that “the burden is on the government to justify restrictions, not on the individual to justify to the government a need to exercise their rights.” If this were the case, then it’s about time the 2nd Amendment gets an overhaul. The Founding Fathers ratified the right to bear arms into the Constitution more than two centuries ago, in 1791, when American independence still brought fresh memories of a tyrannical government, and when automated weapons did not exist. Now, when automatic rifles could kill hundreds in just a few minutes, an amendment to the Constitution made over 200 years ago is certainly due for a revision. 

In the interest of cases in all aspects of the law, the Supreme Court should take the modern day implications into consideration when judging whether a state law is in violation of the Constitution, rather than sticking to what they perceive to be the Constitution’s literal meaning.

Sources:

“Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law Limiting Guns in Public” (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-carry-gun-law.html?searchResultPosition=1)