AFP

From the streets of New York to the corridors of Congress, Americans expressed both outrage and delight at the Supreme Court’s striking down of a gun law Thursday, reflecting the country’s bitter divide.

New York’s governor Kathy Hochul said the decision marked a “dark day,” while Big Apple mayor Eric Adams said it “may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of gun violence.”

“It’s stupid. It’s just stupid,” New Yorker Sushmita Peters told AFP in Hunter’s Point, in the Big Apple borough of Queens.

“People look at people in power to feel safe. And that’s not something you feel when they’re making decisions like this,” added the 23-year-old, emergency room worker.

Nearby, 38-year-old Laurent Baud said the decision was particularly perplexing coming so soon after deadly mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas.

“It’s a little worrisome that more and more people can carry guns,” he said.

Christy, a 32-year-old security guard in Manhattan who declined to give her surname, said she feared it would bring “high crime to the area.”

“Honestly, people are not that mentally stable out here,” she told AFP.

New York officials lined up to slam the move, warning that it would undermine public safety and pledging to introduce legislation to mitigate the ruling.

Governor Hochul, a Democrat, branded it “absolutely shocking,” and accused the six judges whose majority ensured the ruling of acting “recklessly.”

“We can have restrictions on speech — you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater but somehow there’s no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment,” she said, referring to the constitutional amendment allowing Americans the right to bear arms.

Adams, who was elected late last year on a platform to make New York City safer, said the ruling “will put New Yorkers at further risk of gun violence.”

He and Hochul both pledged to review their options.

“We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West,” said Adams, also a Democrat.

– ‘Legitimacy crisis’ –

The court’s ruling will curb the ability of other states who have similar laws, such as California from carrying guns in public.

“This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches. Shameful,” tweeted California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Party colleagues in the federal government echoed the concerns.

“Make no mistake: this decision will put more people at risk of injury or death due to gun violence,” tweeted Congressman Ro Khanna.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal described the Supreme Court as “out of touch with America” and facing “a legitimacy crisis.”

Republicans praised the decision, with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy tweeting that the ruling “rightfully ensures the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves without unnecessary government interference.”

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” said Markwayne Mullin.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which campaigns for gun rights, said it was “gratified” by the “long-overdue affirmation that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.”

There was also some support on the streets of New York City, whose nine million residents overwhelmingly lean liberal.

“It’s a good idea. Self-defense, you can save yourself. Somebody knows you have a gun, they will careful,” 75-year-old Sam, who declined to give his surname, told AFP.

pdh-af-dd-ft/st

The US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Americans have a fundamental right to carry a handgun in public, a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for states and cities across the country struggling with a surge in gun violence.

The 6-3 decision strikes down a more than century-old New York law that required a person to prove they had a legitimate self-defense need, or “proper cause,” to receive a permit to carry a handgun outside the home.

Several other states, including California, have similar laws — and the court’s ruling will curb their ability to restrict people from carrying guns in public.

Democratic President Joe Biden denounced the decision, saying it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”

“We must do more as a society -— not less -— to protect our fellow Americans,” Biden said. “I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety.”

Despite a growing call for limits on firearms after two horrific mass shootings in May, the court sided with advocates who said the US Constitution guarantees the right to own and carry guns.

The ruling is the first by the court in a major Second Amendment case in over a decade, when it ruled in 2008 that Americans have a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

It was a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association lobby group, which brought the case along with two New York men who had been denied gun permits.

“Today’s ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America and is the result of a decades-long fight the NRA has led,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a statement.

“The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home.”

– ‘Dark day’ –

New York Governor Kathy Hochul called it a “dark day,” while California’s leader Gavin Newsom termed the decision “shameful.”

“It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,” Hochul said.

“This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches,” Newsom tweeted.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and was joined by the other five conservatives on the nine-member court, three of whom were nominated by former Republican president Donald Trump.

Thomas said the New York law prevents “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

“We conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas said.

The ruling comes as the US Senate is considering a rare bipartisan bill that includes modest gun control measures.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said the ruling “makes it all the more important for Congress to take actionable steps to protect our kids and communities from this nation’s gun violence epidemic.

“In a nation of almost 400 million firearms, this Supreme Court decision is an invitation for more gun deaths and chaos in America’s neighborhoods,” he said.

On May 14, an 18-year-old used an AR-15-type assault rifle to kill 10 African Americans at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

Less than two weeks later 19 children and two teachers were shot and killed at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, by another teen with the same type of high-powered, semi-automatic rifle.

In the decision, Justice Samuel Alito dismissed arguments that guns outside of homes lead to great violence, including when it comes to mass shootings.

“Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years?,” he wrote.

– Liberals dissent –

The New York law said that to be given a permit to carry a firearm outside the home, a gun owner must clearly demonstrate that it is explicitly needed for self-defense.

Gun-rights advocates said that violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which says “the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court dissented from the ruling.

“Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence,” Justice Stephen Breyer said.

“The Court today severely burdens states’ efforts to do so.”

More than half of US states already allow permitless carry of firearms, most of them only doing so in the past decade.

The New York state law dated to 1913 and had stood based on the understanding that individual states had the right to regulate gun usage and ownership.

Over the past two decades more than 200 million guns have hit the US market, led by assault rifles and personal handguns, feeding a surge in murders, mass shootings and suicides.

The Biden administration has called oil giants to Washington Thursday to discuss what can be done to address runaway gasoline prices that are tanking the president’s approval rating.

Biden has blasted the industry over skyrocketing profits and its reticence to boost capital spending, throwing recent barbs at giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm promised a more conciliatory tack on Wednesday. 

“We’re going in in good faith” Granholm told a White House briefing. “We’re going into this to have an earnest conversation with them.

But the oil industry signaled its own wariness towards Biden, who campaigned on the need for low-carbon solutions and canceled the Keystone Pipeline in his first day in office.

Alluding to Biden’s upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia, the American Petroleum Institute and other groups wrote to Biden early Thursday to “invite” the US president to tour domestic sites such as the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania. 

“American-made energy solutions are beneath our feet, and we urge you to reconsider the immense potential of US oil and natural gas resources –- that are the envy of the world –- to benefit American families, the US economy and our national security,” the groups said in a letter Thursday. 

– Will use ‘all’ tools –

Gasoline prices currently stand at $4.94 a gallon, a bit below all-time highs, but up more than 60 percent from the year-ago level and a key factor in the “intense financial pain the American people and their families are bearing,” Biden said in June 14 letters to oil giants. 

The surge follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which exacerbated an already-tight energy supply situation, sending crude oil prices sharply higher. 

The rise in prices also reflects the diminished state of refining capacity after the industry mothballed some plants during Covid-19 lockdowns, and did not reopen the facilities amid uncertain long-term growth prospects with the buildup of electric vehicles.  

Biden’s policy thus far has centered on a huge increase in crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

On Wednesday, the US president proposed a temporary fuel tax break, a measure that received a lukewarm reception on Capitol Hill.

“I am prepared to use all tools at my disposal … to address barriers to providing Americans affordable, secure energy supply,” Biden said in the June 14 letter that called on ExxonMobil, Chevron and other industry players to “provide concrete, near-term solutions that address the crisis.”

In response, Chevron Chief Executive Mike Wirth pledged to work with the administration, but faulted Biden comments that “at times vilify” the industry — drawing a Biden quip that Wirth was being “mildly sensitive.”

Energy specialist Andrew Lebow is among those skeptical that the meeting will amount to much.

“I don’t think there will be anything substantive coming out of this meeting,” said Lebow of the consultancy, Commodity Research Group.

“There is very little refiners can do at this point,” he said. “If they could produce more, certainly they would be given that the margins are incredible.”

– Short-term solutions? –

On Wednesday, Granholm acknowledged that building new refineries could not be done overnight, but said the administration wanted answers about plants that had been taken off line.

She also saw an opportunity in conferencing on supply chain issues, questioning if there was help that could be provided on a bottleneck.

Kevin Book, head of research at Clearview Energy Partners, said there were areas where government could provide aid, such as facilitating procurement of truck drivers and sand for fracking. Adopting a broadly constructive tone on regulation could also boost investment, he said.

“I think today’s meeting itself is unlikely to produce concrete results, but the tone of the meeting could materially impact the process of which it is part,” Book told AFP in an email.

“If today ends acrimoniously, the standoff could worsen, and the administration may see more political utility in rhetorical enmity than uncomfortable real-life partnership.”

Lawmakers investigating last year’s attack on the US Capitol were set Thursday to lay out Donald Trump’s efforts to turn the Justice Department into his “own personal” law firm in his bid to overturn his election defeat.

At the fifth hearing into its year-long probe of the violence, the House of Representatives panel will highlight Trump’s attempts “to corrupt the country’s top law enforcement body, the Justice Department, to support his attempt to overturn the election,” chairman Bennie Thompson said.

Lawmakers will revisit tensions among government attorneys the weekend before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, when Trump tried to install his own man at the top of the department.

“We’ll look specifically at how the president was trying to misuse the department to advance his own agenda to stay in power at the end of his term,” an aide to the committee said.

“And we’ll look at how that really is different from historical precedent and how the president was using the DOJ for his own personal means.”

The witnesses will be Jeffrey Rosen, an acting attorney general in the dying days of the Trump administration, his deputy Richard Donoghue and Steven Engel, a former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. 

Rosen took over the department after Bill Barr resigned, and soon found himself at the center of Trump’s efforts to undermine confidence in the integrity of the election. 

The DOJ pursued a deluge of Trump’s election fraud claims, but Rosen said officials were presented with no evidence. 

“Some argued to the former president and public that the election was corrupt and stolen,” Rosen said in written remarks prepared ahead of the hearing. 

“That view was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I hope our presence here today helps reaffirm that fact.” 

Trump began supporting a little-known mid-level department official named Jeffrey Clark, who embraced the outgoing president’s debunked theories.

– Oval Office showdown –

Clark pushed colleagues to issue letters to multiple states that presidential challenger Joe Biden won, encouraging officials to consider overturning their election results.

Trump considered installing Clark as attorney general over Rosen, and having Clark reverse the department’s conclusion that there was no evidence of fraud that could sway the election.

But Trump was forced to back off by a rebellion in the department’s senior ranks that the committee said it would relive as it takes the public “into the Oval Office” for the dramatic showdown.

In that January 4 meeting Rosen, Donoghue, Engel and White House counsel Pat Cipollone threatened to resign en masse, warning that they would take a raft of top federal prosecutors with them, if Trump went ahead with his plan.

The panel says it will also reveal how Trump sought to appoint an independent special counsel to pursue his fraud claims, which was resisted by the department.

“And we’ll also look at how the former president threatened to replace or fire leadership within the DOJ and how, again, a few senior Republican officials within the DOJ stood up to Trump’s pressure campaign,” the aide said.

The committee is planning a break from public hearings to assess what it called “significant new streams of evidence” — meaning Thursday’s will be the last until early-to-mid July.

The new evidence includes footage from documentary filmmaker Alex Holder, who had access to Trump and his family before and after January 6.