Supreme Court in Pennsylvania He ruled that the ban on opening a firearm without permission in Philadelphia is unconstitutional, but he refrained from repealing the law.
In Monday’s decision 2-1, the majority stated that state law requiring a license to open the transfer of firearms in Philadelphia, while releasing the rest of Pennsylvania from the requirement, violated the clause equal protection 14. Amendments.
The decision took place in response to the appeal lodged by The Philadelphia Defender Association on behalf of Riyadh Sumptter, who was arrested after the police noticed that he was walking down the street with a pistol observable from the strap. Sumptter was sentenced to 12 months of the trial period in 2022 for opening firearms without a license.
The judges analyzed the requirement specific to Philadelphia “according to the application” of Sumpter, which means that the decision retains the requirement of a book permit, but released the Sumpter’s judgment.
But most of the opinions are not about Details of the case, and instead consist of statements regarding the second amendment, as it concerns the requirement of permission in Philadelphia.
“The right to store and wear weapons outside the home is the basic law protected by the second amendment” Judge Victor P. Stabile wrote for the majorityAdding that the requirement of permission “places people in the city of Philadelphia in a special adverse situation in exercising the right of the second amendment.”
The President of the Supreme Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus, Democrat Philadelphia, joined StableMost of the Republican of Cumberland’s Funny.
The office of the District Prosecutor in Philadelphia argued against leaving the conviction of Sumpter, saying that the state is to provide selected prosecutors with additional law enforcement tools to combat crime.
»Read more: Pa. The Supreme Court hears arguments regarding whether a special septa prosecutor is unconstitutional
But earlier cases “exclude all arguments” that adding tools to be taken to crime is “sufficiently convincing interest to support the strike of the basic right to store and wear weapons in the city of Philadelphia,” wrote the majority
The Defender Association did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to comment.
Renee Garcia, a lawyer from Philadelphia, said in a statement that the city was disappointed with a decision.
“We communicate with the office of the District Prosecutor about their next steps in this matter,” said Garcia.
When making a decision, Lazarus and Stabile consisted of rulings of the US Supreme Court of recent years, such as a decision in 2022, which extended the right to publicly carry firearms to self -defense.
This judgment eliminated the law of New York, which required people to demonstrate the need to wear weapons to obtain a permit for a hidden entity.
The only dissident in the Sumpter, judge Timika Lane, Democrat from Philadelphia, wrote in her overthrow that her colleagues incorrectly characterized this problem. Timika wrote that the United States Supreme Court did not conclude the New York right because there is the right to wear without a license. Instead, the ruling had a problem with the discretionary nature of the New York licensing system.
Sumpter, Timika said, would have a stronger argument if he was applying for a license and refused. But this did not happen.
“Rather, Sumptter simply wore a gun on a public street in Philadelphia regardless of the requirement to get a license” before he did it ” The judge wrote in a separate opinion.
Although a narrow ruling only applies to Sumpter’s case, this led to both celebration and fears.
The ruling explained that the inhabitants of Philadelphia were treated differently than the rest of the community of nations, said Val Finnell, director of Pennsylvania owners of America pistols. He said that the General Assembly in Pennsylvania must repeal the law.
“The rules must be uniform in the whole condition,” he said. “We cannot have a patchwork quilt of weapons in Pennsylvania.”
On the other hand, Adam Garber, executive director of the drive, said that he hopes that the decision was referred to the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania.
“The idea that everyone can wear a firearm around the city, in the subway, in the pool, in parks, it is a recipe for potential damage and danger,” said Garber.
Rodrigo Torrejón staff writer contributed to this article.
