FROM THE CAPITOL GROUNDS DURING JANUARY 6th. >>> NOW TO A MAJOR RULING INVOLVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN A NEW YORK LAW REQUIRING PEOPLE TO SHOW A SPECIAL NEED TO CARRY A CONCEALED GUN IN PUBLIC. HERE IS JAN CRAWFORD. >> Reporter: STRIKING DOWN SOME OF THE NATIONS STRICTEST GUN LAWS, THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT A SECOND CLASS RIGHT. JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS SAID CONCEALED CARRY LAWS IN NEW YORK AND AT LEAST FIVE OTHER STATES PREVENT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH ORDINARY SELF- DEFENSE NEEDS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. NEW YORK OFFICIALS CHARACTERIZED THE RULING AS A BLOW TO PUBLIC SAFETY. >> THIS DECISION MADE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US LESS SAFE FROM GUN VIOLENCE. >> MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT IS THE SAME CLAPTRAP THAT THEY HAVE BEEN USING 20 YEARS >> Reporter: GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WHO CHALLENGE THE LAW SAY IT DID NOTHING TO SOLVE THE REAL PROBLEMS OF GUN VIOLENCE OR STOP MASS SHOOTINGS LIKE THE ONE IN BUFFALO. >> IT'S OF THE CARRY PISTOL PERMIT HOLDERS. IS THE CRIMINALS CAUSING VIOLENCE AND THE GUN PROBLEM IN NEW YORK STATE. >> THE RULING FOLLOWS THE 2008 LINN-MAR DECISION INDIVIDUALS HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN THEIR HOMES. 43 STATES ALLOW LEGAL GUN OWNERS TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS IN PUBLIC, HALF DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE A PERMIT. NEW YORK AS WELL AS FIVE OTHER STATES WENT BEYOND STANDARD PERMITTING REQUIRED TO MAKE GUN OWNERS NEEDED A SPECIAL NEED TO PROTECT HIMSELF. THE COURT RULING SEVERELY BURDENED STATE EFFORTS TO LIMIT IN VARIOUS WAYS TO MAKE PURCHASE, CARRY OR USE FIREARMS OF DIFFERENT KINDS. >> I WANT TO BRING IN ADAM WINKLER A PROFESSOR AT THE UCLA SCOL OF LAW SPECIALIZING IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE SUPREME COURT AND GUN POLICY. CELTIC YOU ARE THE PERFECT PERSON TO TALK TO ABOUT THIS. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE WHY DO THEY HAVE TO PROVE A SPECIAL NEED? >> YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU HAD SOME INDIVIDUALIZED NEED FOR A FIREARM. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE BEEN STOCKED OR YOUR LIFE HAS BEEN THREATENED OR PERHAPS YOU CARRIED AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF JEWELRY OR CASH ON YOU AS PART OF YOUR JOB. BUT, THE COURT PREVIOUSLY SAID UNDER THE NEW YORK RULE YOU COULD NOT GET A FIREARM AND CARRY IT JUST BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST CRIMINALS. THE COURT NOW, SUPREME COURT TODAY STRUCK DOWN THE NEW YORK LAW AND WILL REQUIRE MANY MORE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS. >> YOU KNOW, IT STRIKES ME, THE LAST OF THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON GUNS WAS NOT 2008. CAN YOU TAKE ME THROUGH AND EXPLAIN HOW THE DECISION FACTORED INTO THE RULING TODAY? >> IT WILL 2008 THE SUPREME COURT HELD A SECOND AMENDMENT PROTTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FROM A FIREARM IN YOUR HOME FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION. THE QUESTION THAT WAS UNANSWERED IN THE CASE IS WHETHER YOU ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN IN PUBLIC . THE COURT TODAY ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THE COURT DID SAY STATES AND CITIES CAN IMPOSE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CARRY A FIREARM BUT, THE NEW YORK LICENSING REGIME WHICH WAS AN EFFECTIVE BAN FOR MOST PEOPLE ON THE ABILITY TO CARRY FIREARMS WENT TOO FAR. SO, WE ARE GOING TO SEE PLENTY OF BATTLES IN THE FUTURE AS STATES TRY TO RESTRICT CONCEALED CARRY AND SECOND AMENDMENT ADVOCATES CHALLENGE THOSE RESTRICTIONS. >> YOU AND I BOTH ARE SITTING IN CALIFORNIA WHICH HAS A SIMILAR LAW. YOU HAVE MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, A NUMBER OF OTHER STATES WITH SIMILAR LAWS. HOW A THE RULING IMPACT THOSE OF US IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SEVEN OTHER STATES? >> I THINK IT IS THE IMPACT IN TWO WAYS. ONE, WE HAVE SIMILAR CONCEALED CARRY POLICIES IN NEW YORK AND THOSE POLICIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPEALED AND NEW CONCEALED CARRY POLICIES WRITTEN. IT ALSO WILL AFFECT US IN ANOTHER WAY. THE DECISION OF THE COURT TODAY WAS CLEARLY A SIGNAL THE COURT IS MORE INTERESTED IN SECOND- GUESSING GUN SAFETY REGULATIONS AND THE KINDS OF GUN SAFETY REGULATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CALLED INTO QUESTION BY THE COURT IN THE COMING YEARS MOST LIKELY ARE THOSE IN STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY THAT HAVE RELATIVELY RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS. SPIKE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM IN CALIFORNIA CALLED THE RULING SHAMEFUL, DARK DAY FOR AMERICA HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID THEY WILL BE WORKING WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE RULING, SO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE CHANGES OVERNIGHT, ARE WE? >> WE WANT TO CHANGES OVERNIGHT BUT IT IS GOING TO BE QUICK. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE POLICIES SIMILAR TO CALIFORNIA ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YOU CAN BE PRETTY SURE THAT SOMEONE FILED A COMPLAINT TODAY CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA'S POLICIES ON THE BASIS OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING. LEGISLATURE REALLY HAS TO ACT WITH SOME HASTE HERE. OTHERWISE, THE COURTS MIGHT SAY LOOK, THERE IS NO LAW IN PLACE RESTRICTING CONCEALED CARRY SO ANYONE CAN CARRY A GUN . THE THAT IS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT INCENTIVE FOR NEWSOM AND LAWMAKERS IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE TO ACT PROMPTLY TO ADOPT A NEW SET OF RESTRICTION ON CONCEALED CARRY. >> WE WILL SEE HOW FAST THEY GET TO THAT. AS WE HEARD JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER WHO DISSENTED SAY THE RULING BURDEN STATES TO HAVE GUN LAWS. YOU LIKE A CONSERVATIVES WHO SAY STATES WILL HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS TO REGULATE GUNS, WE HAVE ALL OF THE DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE OTHER REQUIREMENT STATES CAN STILL EXERCISE AT THIS POINT? >> ONE THING THE SUPREME COURT SAID IS THAT THE ONLY GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE ARE THE KINDS OF GUN LAWS WE HAD IN THE 1700S AND 1800s OR LAWS SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE LAWS. THAT REALLY CALLED INTO QUESTION A NUMBER OF GUN LAWS. NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH THE SENATE COMPROMISE BILL WHICH INCLUDES FUNDING FOR RED FLAG LAWS. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY LAWS LIKE RED FLAG LAWS IN 1700S AND 1800s. SO, THAT IS A KIND OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE CALLED INTO QUESTION IN THE
