Supreme Court The initial question the justices must decide is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.
Today, for the first time in more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving the Second Amendment. While the appeal in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen concerns the constitutionality of New York’s restrictive concealed-carry permitting system, the high court’s analysis will prove as important as the ultimate outcome.
Here’s what you need to know.
First Things First: The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Although one of our first freedoms, the Second Amendment remained neglected in the realm of constitutional jurisprudence until 2008, when the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” The court further held that the individual right did not depend on militia service—that the “militia clause” was merely prefatory, explaining the purpose of the protection, but not limiting the right to keep and bear arms.
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution “is fully applicable to the States” and “state subdivisions, such as counties and cities.
While landmark decisions, Heller and McDonald addressed very narrow questions, namely whether laws banning or regulating the possession of weapons in the home violated the Second Amendment. The court answered in the affirmative in both cases, striking the laws at issue in both cases.
Since then, the high court has kept its docket free of all Second Amendment cases, other than in 2016 issuing an unsigned order in Caetano v. Massachusetts, wherein the Supreme Court held that stun guns were protected under the Second Amendment. --->READ MORE HERE
We have been discussing (here and here and here) the Supreme Court challenge in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, the first Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over ten years. Yesterday’s oral argument appeared to confirm the expectations in those columns on the likely reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a reinforcement of Second Amendment rights.
In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.
This case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.”
New York wants to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.
The oral argument quickly confirmed the likely votes of five justices against the New York law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared clearly committed to a reversal as well as a possible expansion of protections for gun rights. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared committed to vote against the law but not necessarily on board with a significant expansion of protections from the earlier holdings of the Court. READ MORE HERE
 |
| AP Photo/Ted S. Warren |
The U.S. Supreme Court heard gun rights arguments Wednesday to decide if a New York law requiring someone show cause in order to be approved for a license to carry a firearm outside of their home violates the Second Amendment.
New York is one of seven states in the country that allows a person to carry a firearm in public only if they can demonstrate that they have a need to do so. New York officials argue that if the Supreme Court strikes down this statute, it could have a domino effect, jeopardizing the other states that have this law, as well as endanger others that restrict public carry in places like airports or schools.
Meanwhile, 41 states are considered “shall issue” jurisdictions, notes CBS News. A “shall issue” jurisdiction means that applicants seeking a concealed carry license must meet a basic set of requirements under state law to receive one but do not need to demonstrate a need to carry. Some states also now require no permit at all.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement — who spoke on behalf of the petitioners during the Supreme Court’s hearing on New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen on Wednesday — offered a counterargument to New York officials’ position. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment