hey guys,
just a quick blurb as many of us are trying to unpack the implications of the ruling, particularly here in California.
one thing that has been popping up is disingenuous or flat out deliberately erroneous headlines stating things like the "supreme court made it legal to carry concealed without a license in new york" or that supreme court has made it legal to carry outside the home.
the reality of the situation is that the only thing the supreme court has done is say that the good cause statement, namely why you want to get a ccw, is unconstitutional. what is meant by that is the practice of 'may issue' states qualifying a need with an arbitrary notion that has been undefined and up to the discretion of the issuing authority being unconstitutional itself.
what the ruling means is that, if somebody wants a CCW, they can apply for one. they do however have to still meet all of the other state requirements, such as training, fees, and responsibilities, including qualifying with their firearms.
in no way did the supreme court do anything more than that. in the case of new york, rather than saying you could carry without a license, it essentially ruled that you are now allowed to apply for one and be granted one if you meet all the other requirements.
I encourage everyone to read the actual ruling as many news outlets are either unknowingly or deliberately misleading the public about what the ruling actually means, and unfortunately there is plenty of virtue signaling coming out from gun control favoring elected officials on it.