Cue the usual wailing, but Supreme Court gun ruling won’t unleash new wave of violence

There’s no question that the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for constitutional gun rights Thursday, when it invalidated a New York law that required applicants for licenses to carry to show acute self-defense needs.

It was immediately followed by the usual wails and predictions of shootouts in the streets, death and mayhem everywhere. The same complaints have followed every significant expansion of gun-carrying rights — and they’re almost always wrong.

Texas is a prime example. The creation of concealed-carry permits came with predictions that every road-rage incident or cut-in-line at the convenience store would lead to “Wild West” gunfire exchanges.

No. Gun violence has, at worst, held steady for the better part of 30 years. Recent years have seen upticks in the rate of gun deaths in Texas, but there’s little evidence that recent gun-right expansions, such as allowing concealed weapons on some college campuses and “open carry” of handguns, are the cause.

Permitless carry, aka “constitutional carry,” is new enough that its effects are still unknown. But common sense dictates that gun violence is the result of unlawful behavior. People who take pains to follow the rules are rarely the problem.

Our gun violence problems are driven by many factors — including, yes, the prevalence of guns. It’s not the biggest cause, though. That would be young men (and some not-so-young ones, too) who have not learned impulse control or how to handle their disputes and disappointments without resorting to violence.

They violate a plethora of gun laws, ones that should be fully and vigorously enforced before we try broad new restrictions. You just don’t see a lot of gang members and hotheads taking the time and effort to apply for a license-to-carry.

States can still set conditions on licenses such as preventing felons and domestic abusers from carrying. They can require training and fees.

What they can no longer do is predicate a constitutional right on special needs. They cannot, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, require citizens to prove they deserve to carry any more than they should have to pre-emptively explain what they want to say before exercising their speech rights.

“The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote on behalf of the 6-3 majority. “The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.”

This undoubtedly irritates gun control enthusiasts the most. They love to ask, “why does anyone need” to own a certain rifle or to carry a handgun.

The Supreme Court just definitively answered: None of your damn business.