Compound statement

ACS Statement in Response to Supreme Court Decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen


Contact: Pablo

washington d.c. – The Supreme Court today issued a final decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. United States a seriously less safe place to live in the process. Ruling that “Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” has potential to be abused and misinterpreted by right-wing justices and opponents of gun violence prevention to chill the future of local, state, and federal efforts to enact common sense gun regulations. The court’s conservative supermajority substituted its own partisan preferences for the popular will of New Yorkers and the judgment of their legislators.

The supermajority betrays a fundamental weakness of originalism by relying on its own reading of history – and rejecting much of the historical evidence provided by New York State – to undermine gun safety legislation. fire, completely ignoring the prevalence and lethality of gun violence today. This is especially infuriating given that the ruling came just months after a handgun was used in a mass shooting on a Brooklyn subway train and just weeks after this country witnessed horrific mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde calling for gun safety measures. .

“We are in the midst of a deadly gun epidemic in this country. As seen in Uvalde, it is easier for an 18-year-old to buy a gun than to get a gun license. And, despite what gun proponents have been saying for years — including during oral arguments in this case — this country has amassed a tragic trove of data over the past few decades proving that “good guys with guns fire” do not diminish the likelihood or lethality of mass shootings. Today, our highest court thumbed its nose at this epidemic, choosing to make it harder for states to address gun violence with common-sense gun safety regulations,” said Russ Feingold, President of the ACS. “The conservative-packed Court has twisted history and adopted an interpretation of the law far outside the mainstream of the legal thought for the purpose of justifying its decision extr emitted. It is the majority that uses its unchecked power to advance a strictly partisan agenda, at the dangerous expense of public safety. The Court’s actions call for reform.

“It is no coincidence that the Court has decided to take up this case now, more than a decade after Heller,” said Zinelle October, executive vice president of the ACS. “In 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a similar California law. It was only after the right packed the court that the conservative supermajority decided to hear another challenge to the Second Amendment, convinced that it had the votes for the extremist opinion published today. The Court continues to deepen its crisis of existential legitimacy and must be reformed, lest we wake up tomorrow and are unable to recognize the laws that dictate our lives.



The ACS believes that the Constitution is “of the people, by the people and for the people”. We interpret the Constitution on the basis of its text and in the context of history and lived experience. Through a diverse national network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars and many more, we work to uphold the Constitution in the 21st century by ensuring that the law is a force for to protect our democracy and the public interest and to improve people’s lives. . For more information, visit us at or on Twitter @acslaw.