Public transport with public health – the damage from the Supreme Court decision in Bruin

In June, the US Supreme Court made a decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen The Second Amendment provides a constitutionally protected right to bear arms in public. The decision is stirring up political and public outcry as policymakers look for new ways to deal with America’s growing gun-violence epidemic. The majority opinion in The bridgeWritten by Justice Clarence Thomas, it will have devastating effects on efforts to address gun violence and address racial disparities, but the reasoning used in the decision could lead to even more damage going forward.

in The bridgeThe Supreme Court struck down a 1913 New York law that required those applying for a permit to carry a gun to publicly demonstrate a special interest in doing so. To meet this “just cause” requirement, an applicant would have to provide more proof than a need to obtain a firearm if the need for self-defense arises. Often referred to as the “may issue” licensing system — which existed in five other states and the District of Columbia, covering a total of about 80 million people — this type of law gave local law enforcement some discretion to determine whether probable cause exists. Authorization to carry a concealed weapon.

In striking down the law, the court paid no attention to the rising number of gun homicides — rates this country has not seen in decades — or to New York’s attempt to balance the law’s Second Amendment rights with public safety. While the court ruled that the law was being applied too narrowly, it instead struck down the law entirely based on a vastly expanded interpretation of the Second Amendment, giving no weight to the state’s reduction in the number of firearms. public sphere. In the end, what mattered was the right of “law-abiding citizens” — an ambiguous term not defined above — to decide to carry guns for self-defense.

Declaring the May-Case regimes invalid and creating a constitutional right to bear arms in public would harm public health. First, research using large data sets and increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques has increased gun violence by allowing people to carry guns in public.¹ Moreover, allowing more guns in public does nothing to address the drivers of criminal behavior, which include social factors such as poverty, neighborhood violence, poor education, and substandard housing.² Rather, the proliferation of firearms in public may exacerbate conflicts, as evidence suggests that either violent individuals are more likely to arm themselves or armed individuals are more likely to act violently—or perhaps both.¹

Second, the increase in firearms in public may exacerbate both racial disparities in gun violence and racial inequities. Historically marginalized communities — especially black men — already suffer disproportionately from gun violence.³ When such an attack increases the response The bridgeIt will no doubt be used to justify more intense policing, which disproportionately affects black people and other marginalized communities, raising the risk of harm from the state. We need only consider high-profile cases like Philando Castile, Tamir Rice and John Crawford III to realize the prevalence of racial bias and bias in law enforcement.

A more heavily armed population can amplify this danger. Although the concept of a law-abiding citizen has some appeal, It only takes one pull of the trigger for a law-abiding citizen to turn into a killer. People cannot predict with any degree of accuracy when a stranger in public will make this change. Instead, stereotypes and biases inform perceptions of who is at risk and who is not. The data show that seeing black faces and bodies triggers thoughts of crime, black men and boys are often perceived as older and stronger than they are, and young black men are perceived as older and physically threatening.⁴

Meanwhile, justice for violence between civilians is less likely, as the same biases influence judges and juries in deciding whether a fatal act is “justifiable.” For example, in so-called standstill states, people are authorized to use lethal force in public without any attempt to retreat if they “reasonably” fear for their safety. This line of defense is five times more likely to be used successfully when the shooter is white and the victim is black when the roles are reversed.⁵

These consequences lead to widespread public harm in the form of subsequent deterioration of mental health. Our understanding of gun violence is often too narrow and must include traumas beyond gun deaths such as isolation, stress, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Increases in gun violence, fear of people with guns and tensions with the police lead many people to isolate themselves to avoid scary public places, further exacerbating mental health problems. We’ve seen what isolation and public health crises can do to mental health during the Covid pandemic. Meanwhile, mass shootings are creating school children who are constantly being shot in their schools or communities, and active shooter training itself can cause mental health problems.³ All these risks have increased The bridge.

While the court’s ruling directly exacerbates gun violence, the reasoning behind it may make matters worse. The court ruled that gun restrictions were constitutional only if the government presented sufficient evidence that similar laws were in effect in the 18th and 19th centuries, which showed they were consistent with traditional gun regulation. Policies to address modern gun violence are limited to those in power, sidestepping existing problems in favor of policies that were in place at the nation’s founding (such as legalized slavery) and during Reconstruction (black codes and lynching). Hundreds of years ago it was not reasonable.³ Because yet The bridge While New York’s law is similar to restrictions allowed in various states in the past, close historical consensus is the new standard. Such a measure casts serious doubt on restrictions on certain firearms, such as the AR-15, and bans on large-capacity magazines. The bridge It also states that the Second Amendment’s protections extend to “modern equipment facilitating armed self-defense.” Thus, history limits policies regarding gun violence, not the weapons used to carry it out.

No right is absolute, and the government—if not obligated—can prevent harm to the general public by exercising constitutional rights. Such authority includes the speech and religious practices covered by the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment should be no exception. But the Court’s new concept of the Second Amendment forces lower courts to ignore public health research, circumstantial evidence, the current epidemic of gun violence and other public rights and liberties. Efforts to curb gun violence, including those currently underway in New York and California, have and will continue to work, but elevating the Supreme Court’s history above other concerns has undoubtedly created a more difficult path to achieving that goal.