Breyer questions use of history in courts’ reviews of gun regulations
Breyer questions use of history in courts’ reviews of gun regulations
From CNN’s Tierney Sneed
Justice Stephen Breyer took aim at how some of the court’s conservatives would like to approach reviewing gun regulations.
Justices like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have pushed back on the balancing tests some courts have used in gun regulation cases. They instead have advocated for looking at history and the tradition around the Second Amendment, in addition to its text, when assessing regulations’ compliance with the constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas kicked off the questioning Wednesday by asking Paul Clement about how to use history to analyze cases.
Breyer, following up and seeking to punch a hole in the conservative arguments, noted that in legal briefs, history professors make different and contradicting arguments about what the history says. “How are we supposed to deal with that?” he asked.
Clement is arguing on behalf of the people and gun rights groups challenging the New York regulations.
Clement served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration and is a go-to lawyer for conservative causes being argued in the Supreme Court.
“Carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental, constitutional right,” Clement said in his opening presentation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch participates in argument remotely as he battles stomach bug
From CNN’s Dan Berman
For the second day in a row, Justice Neil Gorsuch is absent from the courtroom with a stomach bug.
He’s participating in oral arguments remotely.
He has tested negative for Covid-19 and all the justices have been vaccinated.
Only journalists, lawyers and law clerks are actually sitting in the court room, six feet apart.
NOW: Supreme Court hears arguments on scope of Second Amendment and gun control laws
From CNN’s Ariane de Vogue
Two days after hearing a major abortion case, the Supreme Court is taking the bench again to discuss another topic that bitterly divides the country: gun rights.
It’s been more than a decade since the justices have decided a significant Second Amendment case and now the conservative-leaning court has the opportunity to reexamine the scope of the right to keep and bear arms in a case brought by an affiliate of the National Rifle Association.
The court could potentially allow more guns to be carried on some of the busiest streets in the largest cities in the nation, at a time when the Biden administration has vowed to push for enhanced gun regulations.
In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense. Except for a follow-up decision two years later, the justices have largely stayed away from the issue infuriating gun rights advocates and even some of the justices themselves.
Now, the focus will be on President Trump’s nominees, particularly Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who signaled when they served on the lower courts that they think the court should change the way it evaluates gun regulations.
Read more about today’s oral arguments here.
How the newest Supreme Court justices could redraw the road map for the Second Amendment in courts
From CNN’s Ariane de Vogue
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could broaden gun rights nationwide and transform how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the United States.
On the surface, the dispute involves whether a New York law that restricts individuals from carrying concealed handguns outside the home for self-defense passes legal muster. The case is brought by two individuals and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association.
The court’s six conservative justices could look skeptically at the broad reach of the law and could ultimately make it easier for individuals to carry arms for self-defense outside of the home.
But at oral arguments, all eyes will be on the court’s two newest members, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, to see how far they push their colleagues to do something more.
As lower court judges, the two Donald Trump nominees signaled that they think courts need to rethink the framework often used to measure how every other gun regulation should be evaluated.
If Kavanaugh and Barrett’s view of the issue prevails, critics fear the conservative wing of the court will not stop at allowing more people to carry guns in public for self-defense. Instead, the court could junk the legal test that has been used to uphold most gun restrictions in the lower courts over the past decade and provide what critics fear will be a road map for lower courts to look skeptically at a whole range of other gun laws.
Kavanaugh and Barrett, in their previous roles, rejected an approach grounded in balancing an individual’s right to bear arms against the government’s interest in passing the law at issue. Instead, they said judges should focus on the text, history and tradition — the intent of the founders — in weighing a gun restriction.
Your guide today’s high-stakes oral arguments on the scope of the Second Amendment
From CNN’s Ariane de Vogue
The conservative leaning Supreme Court will take up another blockbuster issue Wednesday, as they consider the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
It’s been more than a decade since the court has decided a major Second Amendment case, much to the outrage of supporters of gun rights as well as some of the justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas once said, for instance, that he thought the Second Amendment is a “disfavored” right on the court.
The new case is called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and it concerns a long-standing New York law governing licenses to carry concealed handguns in public for self-defense. It requires a resident to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver, but they must demonstrate that “proper cause” exists for the permit.
How the oral arguments will unfold:
- First up will be Paul Clement, one of the finest appellate lawyers in the country who served as solicitor general during the Bush administration. He is representing Robert Nash and Brandon Koch as well as the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association—an affiliate of the NRA. He told the justices that while his clients passed all the required background checks to obtain licenses to carry guns for hunting and target practice, they have not been able to establish the special need for self-defense that is required under the New York law in order to receive an unrestricted license. Clement is expected to tell the justices that the law makes it almost impossible for an ordinary individual to obtain a license because the standard is so demanding. He said in court papers that “good, even impeccable” moral character is not enough.
- Next up will be New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. She is expected to cite the historical scope of the Second Amendment to argue that the law should pass legal muster. In court papers she told the justices that if they accept Clement’s arguments it would “break with seven centuries of history and have devastating consequences for public safety.” She said it could even threaten restrictions that states have adopted to protect the public in sensitive places like courthouses, airports, subways, houses of worship and schools.
- The Biden administration is supporting New York. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher is expected to tell the court that for centuries lawmakers have protected the public by passing reasonable regulations. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Fletcher told the justices in court papers, “but that right is not absolute.”
Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/B3upTl5lbyo/h_ef18b24ef95d1bff50fe87e2443d7eee
